?/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IE Office
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
EPA 9027 4-79-004
September 1979
Air
Evaluation of the State
Implementation Plan
Revision Submitted by
New York State in Fulfillment
of the Moynihan - Holtzman
Amendment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1OOO7
OCTOBER 11, 1979
THIS DOCUMENT, "EVALUATION OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
REVISION SUBMITTED BY NEW YORK IN FULFILLMENT OF THE MOYNIHAN-
HOLTZMAN AMENDMENT" WAS PREPARED TO ASSIST THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY IN ITS REVIEW OF A NEW YORK STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN REVISION. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NOR CAN THE AGENCY VOUCH FOR ITS
ACCURACY.
-------
EVALUATION OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
SUBMITTED BY NEW YORK STATE
IN FULFILLMENT OF THE MOYNIHAN-HOLTZMAN AMENDMENT
September 1979
FINAL REPORT
Project Officer:
Mr. John Walsh
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Contract Number: 68-NY-0001
Alain L. Kornhauser and Associates
Transportation Consultants
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Prepared for
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
This report has been reviewed by
the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment of the 1977 Clean Air Act charges the
State of New York with the responsibility to develop and implement a transit
improvement program to meet the "basic transportation needs" of the New York
City metropolitan area.
This study is a critical evaluation of the New York State Submission in
response to the Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment. The submission is evaluated from
various viewpoints - philosophical, technical, and sociological. The study team
was composed of Dr. Alain L. Kornhauser (Civil/Mechanical Engineer),
Dr. Jerome M. Lutin (Urban Planner), Dr. Reggie J. Caudill (Mechanical Engineer),
Dr. Michael J. Munson (Urban Planner), Dr. James Beniger (Sociologist), and
Mr. Rasin Mufti (Civil Engineer). Dr. Jerome M. Lutin was Project Director.
Five basic tasks form the primary structure of this evaluation: (1) an
examination of industry-wide transit performance measures and standards to
provide a frame of reference for the evaluation of the New York metropolitan area
system; (2) a determination of transit needs based on local perceptions and
priorities; (3) an analysis of the budget and cost data in the New York region;
(4) a comparative analysis of transportation service and expenditures for other
areas with similar levels of transit service; (5) an analysis of the submission
itself to provide a framework for the evaluation.
A set of itemized conclusions resulting from this evaluation procedure is
presented in Chapter VI of this report. In summary, the key conclusions of
this study are as follows:
• The submission does not adequately define basic transportation needs,
nor does it advance a program of sufficient scope and financial resources
to satisfy the Ttkely mobftity needs of individuals in the region.
iii
-------
• "Basic transportation needs" should refer to the mobility of people,
not the movement of vehicles; consequently, the performance measures
and standards should be user-oriented rather than system-oriented.
t The proposed budget is insufficient to provide for the transit improvements
specified in the submission. Given the modest estimates for future
inflation and unemployment rates, the deficit could exceed $350 million.
• The projection of operating assistance funds past 1982 is developed
by a methodology which may result in an over-estimation of available
funds.
t Public opinion surveys indicate that transit ridership is more
sensitive to the quality of service and safety than to cost; transit
improvements are needed, and the public is willing to pay increased
fares or taxes to fund the improvements.
t The issue of transportation needs of special groups, including the poor,
elderly, and handicapped is not appropriately addressed by the submission,
no funds are budgeted, and no alternative funding source is identified.
• Transit riders express considerable apprehension about personal security
when riding transit, especially subways. Concern for safety outranks
all other travel attributes, including cost, in ridership surveys.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
I. Evaluation Structure and Methodology 1
II. Evaluation of Alternative Definitions of Basic Transportation
Needs (BTN) 8
II.A Alternative Definitions Based on Point-of-View 8
II.B Basic Transportation Needs in the National Context ... 11
II.C Basic Transportation Needs in the New York Context ... 15
II.D Justification of Basic Transportation Needs Definition
in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission 24
II.E Critique of the M-H Submission Definition of Basic
Transportation Needs 26
III. Performance, Standards, and Priorities in Fulfillment of
Basic Transportation Needs 29
III.A Standards Used in Moynihan-Holtzman Submission 29
III.B Comparison of MHS Performance Criteria with the
Transit Industry 30
III.C Local User Priorities in Evaluating Performance .... 45
III.D Local Government Priorities 49
IV. Evaluation of Public Transportation Actions to Meet Basic
Transportation Needs 56
IV.A Actions Proposed in Moynihan-Holtzman Submission .... 56
IV.B Evaluation of the Appropriateness of the Actions .... 57
IV.B.I Evaluation Methodology 57
IV.8.2 Problems of Consistency in the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission 57
IV.B.3 Local Views of Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
Actions 59
V. Funding and the Likelihood of Implementation 64
V.A Proposed Funding Levels 64
i V.B Comparative Budgets and Fare Analysis 76
V.C Security of Proposed Funding Sources 89
VI. Conclusions 92
Appendix A ' 96
.Appendix B 117
-------
Title Page
Appendix C 149
Appendix D 168
References 177
-------
I. EVALUATION STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to assist the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in reviewing and evaluating the revision to the State
Implementation Plan as required by the Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment to the
Clean Air Act, August 1977- The Moynihan-Holtzman amendment was designed to
eliminate the requirement for bridge tolls on the East River bridges leading
into Manhattan from the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. It was believed by
local officials that the imposition of such tolls, which had been required by
the transportation control plan to reduce auto emissions, would result in
serious economic difficulties for the city of New York. However, in order to
insure that adequate substitute provisions would be made to insure reductions
in motor vehicle travel and commensurate improvements in air quality, the
Moyrrihan-Holtzman Amendment required that the State Implementation Plan be
revised to include comprehensive measures to meet basic transportation needs.
In response to this provision the state of New York prepared a revision to the
State Implementation Plan. It is this revision to the State Implementation
Plan, known as the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission, which is the subject of this
study.
This investigation has been restricted to Title 1, Part A, Section 110
(c)(5)(b)(i) which states,
"The [State Implementation PI an]...shall...be revised to
include comprehensive measures...to (i) establish, expand
or improve public transportation measures to meet basic
transportation needs, as expeditiously as is practicable,...
and such a plan shall, for the purpose of implementing such
comprehensive public transportation measures, include
requirements to use Federal grants, State or local funds
or any combination of such grants and funds..."
-------
This study does not examine provisions of the New York Submission
relevant to Subparagraph (ii) which would require examination of air quality
improvements which will result from basic transportation improvements.
Transportation needs differ markedly from the five counties of New York
City to the surrounding less-dense suburban counties. Commuter rail and
suburban bus service needs are de-emphasized in the submission, with the major
emphasis being placed on urban bus and subway improvements. The lack of a
discussion of the differences in basic needs and performance criteria for central
city and suburban public transportation is considered to be a deficiency in
the submission.
One of the implications of the Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment, which was not
specifically addressed in the submission, was the achievement of mass transit
benefits equivalent to those expected from the bridge toll strategy (letter
from Costle to Carey, June 20, 1978). Toll revenues would have provided
additional financial assistance to New York's mass transit system, beyond that
obtainable through Federal programs. This issue was not dealt with in the
submission.
-------
Study Methodology
Objectives and Approach
In order to insure a fair and objective analysis of the Submission, two
basic objectives were proposed. The first was to interpret the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission from the point of view of planners and transit analysts.
The study team did not look at it as lawyers or administrators and acknowledges
that certain legal aspects of the plan are more appropriately addressed by the
EPA and its attorneys.
Second, the review process has tried to maximize the independence of the
individuals involved in the review. External facts and data have been examined
independent of the submission, with respect to the transportation industry,
federal and local government policy, operating agencies, and transit properties.
An independent examination was conducted of the text itself, and a consensus
was reached based on the opinions of all individuals in the study team.
A multidisciplinary approach was adopted. The study team was composed of
Dr. Beniger, a sociologist; Dr. Caudill, mechanical engineer; Dr. Kornhauser,
a mechanical and civil engineer; Dr. Lutin, an urban planner; Mr. Mufti, a
civil engineer and Dr. Munson* an urban planner. An unbiased report seemed
most likely to result from assigning to each member of the study tasks in
specific functional areas which could be pursued independently of the other team
members. Each individual would then be free to develop an independent assessment
of the adequacy of the items relevant to his specific area, without being
influenced by opinions of other analysts on the team. Until the concluding dialog
session (described below), communication among study team members was kept to
the minimum needed to insure consistency of the final report.
The Task Structure
Five basic tasks provided the framework for the structure of the study.
The first task, to examine transit performance measures and standards industry-
-------
wide, required investigation of what is considered to be good operating practice,
desirable standards, and minimum acceptable standards for the public transit
industry as a whole. Data for transit properties all over the nation were
obtained to provide a frame of reference for the evaluation of the New York
system.
The objective of Task 1 was to establish a basic set of performance
criteria against which to measure the improvements to the New York metropolitan
transit system stated in the submission. Other transit systems, industry
groups and federal agencies were contacted to determine relevant standards which
had been promulgated and accepted. A major concern was the distinction between
"basic" transportation performance levels and "desirable" levels.
The second task was the determination of basic transportation needs based
on examination of local perceptions and priorities. Regardless of standards
in other metropolitan areas, the New York metropolitan area has a unique relation-
ship with public transit. According to the 1970 Census Journey to Work data,
of all U.S. residents commuting to work by rail in 1970, 81% lived in the
New York Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Because such a large
percentage of New York residents (43%) commute to work by transit (versus less
than 9% for the rest of the country), the New York region is often considered
an anomaly with respect to transit usage.
In order to ascertain local perception of "basic transportation needs", for
task number two, three types of data were obtained. First, results of recent
behavioral and public opinion surveys of New York residents concerning
transportation behavior and attitudes were obtained and examined. Second,
local planning agencies, transit operating agencies, and legislative staffs
were contacted to obtain documents which outlined governmental perceptions of
local transportation needs and priorities. Third, various public interest groups
and citizen's organizations were contacted to determine which transportation needs
were common concerns among groups of individuals within the region.
-------
Task number three involved obtaining budget and cost data for transit
operations in the New York region. Planning agencies and transit operating
agencies were contacted to obtain copies of documents dealing with the
financial aspects of public transportation operations in New York. The
objective of this task was to obtain independent estimates of historic trends
and future projections for transit expenditures. These data would provide a
reference to determine whether expenditures in the SIP revision were
consistent with respect to other estimates of capital and operating needs,
and were in line with historic trends in revenue, inflation, and operating
cost.
Task number four required collection of data on transportation service-
and expenditures for other urban areas with similar levels of transit service.
While New York's transit system is much larger than other systems, an attempt
was made to compare systems on a unit cost basis, to determine if New York's
costs, subsidies, and revenues were comparable to those in other areas. Coupled
with data from task three, this information would permit an assessment of the
financial commitment to transit in the New York region as compared with other
regions, to determine the relative pattern of federal transit subsidies.
The fifth task of the study required an analysis of the submission
itself, to provide a framework for evaluation. Key phrases and terms were
extracted and analyzed to determine if they were used consistently within the
submission, and were consistent with provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Semantics were considered important because of the vagueness of the wording in
the CAA. The overall structure of this study was determined by the need to
scrutinize the submission on a point-by-point basis.
The completion of these separate tasks required holding a one-day
conference/dialog session, in which all issues related to the submission were
discussed and compared with independently derived standards. This dialog session
formed the basis for this report.
-------
Data Analysis
Neither the time nor the funding available to this project permitted
the conduct of any new survey research; nor did they permit reanalysis of any
primary survey data in the form of computer tapes, cards, etc. All of the
data presented here have been collected by others and are in their original
form (univariate distributions, cross-tabulations, etc.) as presented in
published form or private typed documents. The contributions of this analysis
include a census of all available transportation surveys conducted in the
New York City area in recent years, the indexing of all individual questions
and items on these surveys, and the retrieval, comparison and integration of
these various findings in a unified review of transportation needs (Section II.C),
priorities (Section III.C), and evaluations (Section IV.B.3).
Structure of the Report
The report is structured in six chapters. Chapter I discusses the
evaluation structure and methodology. Chapter II evaluates alternative
definitions of basic transportation needs, with particular emphasis on the
definitions used in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission. Chapter III discusses
performance standards and criteria for transit systems required to meet basic
transportation needs, including industry standards, local priorities, and
standards derived from federal policy. Chapter IV includes an evaluation of the
public transportation actions proposed in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission to
determine whether they, in fact, meet basic transportation needs and are
consistent with the performance criteria stated. Chapter V examines proposed
levels and availability of funding to determine the likelihood of implementation
of the proposed actions in the immediate future. Chapter VI contains the
conclusions drawn from the study as a whole, with adequacy of the Submission
considered not necessarily with respect to compliance with the law, but in terms
of definitions of basic transportation needs, performance criteria, actions
-------
taken, and funding and implementation likelihood, with respect to other regions
and industry-wide practice.
The report also contains four appendices:
Appendix A is an analysis of operating budgets proposed in the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission. Appendix B contains supporting exhibits for Section II.C,
Basic Transportation Needs in the New York Context. Appendix C contains
supporting exhibits for Section III.C, Local User Priorities in Performance
Evaluation. Appendix D contains supporting exhibits for Section IV.B.4, Local
Views of Moynihan-Holtzman Submission Actions.
-------
II. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF BASIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS (BTN)
II.A. Alternative Definitions Based on Point-of-View
The definition of the term "basic transportation needs" varies with the point
of view of the definer. For the purposes of this study, five viewpoints are
relevant: those of
(1) the individual user of transportation,
(2) the planner,
(3) the operator of public transportation,
(4) agencies involved in funding transportation improvements,
(5) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
These viewpoints are applicable to public rather than private transportation
measures. Consideration of private measures would have involved other points of
view.
User's Definition
The user defines basic transportation needs in terms of his own mobility,
most fundamentally requiring that the transportation system be capable of taking
him where he wants to go. The user also requires that the system meet certain
criteria with regard to his own safety, convenience, and comfort.
Personal safety and security is a primary consideration for the user: he
wants to be able to make a journey with the reasonable expectation of arriving
unmolested and intact at the end of the journey. A user also expects the system
to accommodate the physical limitations of individuals. This requires not only
recognition of normal parameters of human tolerance for conditions such as
acceleration forces, temperatures, and physical space, but also necessitates
consideration of the special needs of the elderly and handicapped.
-------
A certain level of convenience is also expected by a user: the system
should be able to bring him close to his destination, and to do so within
reasonable time and cost limitations. Regular and reliable service must be
maintained, so that users can depend on transportation being available on a
regular and continuing basis appropriate for the time of day, as they plan
their daily activities.
A reasonable level of comfort, as distinguished from conditions needed
merely to maintain human survival, is also included in the user's definition
of basic transportation needs. For comfort a user wants a clean and quiet
environment, a seat, protection from weather, maintenance of reasonable levels
of temperature and humidity, and freedom from crowding.
And, since even a transit user is a non-user some of the time, he cannot
completely ignore the transportation system's effects on a non-user. Thus he
would expect the transportation system not to be offensive to the non-user; it
should not intrude unduly on the environment or provide offensive noise, dust,
or interruption to someone who does not use the system.
Planner's Definition
The planner's definition of basic transportation needs will differ from that
of the user since the planner must concern himself with system-wide and region-wide
goals and objectives. He would define basic transportation as that level of
transportation service required to permit safe and efficient functioning of the
region. The planner is concerned with such issues as equity of service; he must
determine how all groups in the community can be served equitably. The planner
is interested in satisfying aggregate demand rather than individual demand. In
addition, he is concerned with maintaining the economic, social, and cultural
life of the community, and with realizing regional goals; the planner sees basic
-------
10
transportation needs in the context of all the elements necessary to enable
the region to function in a manner which maximizes the quality of life for all
residents.
Operator's Definition
The operator's definition of basic needs is more specific than the planner's.
The transit operator would define basic transportation needs as the physical
resources needed to maintain and operate a system or provide a specific service.
His definition of need is nearly always expressed in dollars or cash. Frequently,
his needs are quite specific and easily expressed as a line-item budget.
Fund.i ng- Source Defi ni ti on
An agency involved in funding transportation would define basic transportation
needs in terms of the fiscal resources needed to maintain operations and improve
and extend the system or service. Such a definition is similar to the operator's
but it has certain conditions placed upon it. First, if the agency is not
exclusively concerned with transportation, the definition is influenced by competing
needs. There are funding needs in areas other than transportation which must be
satisfied. The funding source must look at transportation and competing needs
and make a balanced allocation. Second, he must consider transportation needs in
light, of limited available resources; there is a limited amount of money available
in the public purse to provide for all needs of the community. Third, there is
competition among regions for transportation funding. Those responsible for
funding transportation must allow some discretion and local control over the
use of allocated funds; theymust also strive to achieve equity among the competing
regions. Such equity may not necessarily be defined in terms of absolute standards,
which would imply that regions with the poorest public transit would receive all
the funding; rather, equity may be defined as allocating funds to achieve uniform
improvements.
-------
11
Basic Needs Definition Implied by the Clean Air Act
The Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment to the Clean Air Act permits a trade-off
among various transportation control measures. When the bridge toll requirement
was removed, the Amendment called for other actions to achieve equivalent results.
Thus, the concept of basic transportation needs might well be interpreted as
'those actions required to make public transportation attractive enough to induce
auto drivers in sufficient numbers to take public transit, so as to achieve
results equivalent to the imposition of bridge tolls.' This definition, while
clearly in accord with' the spirit of the Clean Air Act, was de-emphasized by the
drafters of the submission on the grounds that bridge tolls would not significantly
reduce emissions and public transit improvements would have a limited impact on
reducing auto use.
The EPA definition of basic transportation needs includes those actions
required to provide sufficient mass transit service and capacity to permit
institution of any necessary auto restraint strategies within the air quality
non-attainment area. If strategies to reduce auto travel were implemented to
attain air quality standards, current mass transit service would prove inadequate
to handle large shifts of travelers from auto to mass transit. Thus, basic
transportation needs would be defined in terms of substituting transit for auto
to maintain individual mobility and attain air quality standards (letter from
Costle, 1978).
II.8. Basic Transportation Needs (BTN) in the National Context
In addition to being affected by the perspective of the definer, the definition
of basic transportation needs can be influenced by factors such as the time period,
location, or political climate. What constitutes a basic transportation need at
any one time or for a particular community and geographic setting might not be
adequate at another time or in a different community and geographic setting.
-------
12
A changing political climate can cause similar differences in definition. In a
conservative climate, BIN may be viewed as an individual matter related to what
any particular person is willing to pay. In a liberal political climate, on
the other hand, BIN may be compared to the need for decent housing or the right
to work. In fact, the latter might have a strong cause and effect relationship
with BIN.
The relatively subjective manner in which needs can be defined suggests the
close association of these definitions with a stated goal or objective. The
definition itself can be a statement of objectives, or it can be an action or a
set of actions required to satisfy certain goals and objectives.
The Federal Definition of BTN
On the federal level, the absence of a clear definition of basic transportation
needs severely hinders formulation of national transportation policies in general
and urban transportation policies in particular.
Only in recent years, and only under a great deal of pressure from special
interest groups or other government agencies, have national transportation policies
begun to emerge. Government policies, though they attempt to recognize users',
planners', and operators' points of view, are often confused and conflicting. Two
agencies of the Federal government, both dealing with transportation, may propose
policies and definitions which may be in conflict, if, for example, one is
concerned with mobility and the other with conservation.
The first attempt by the U.S. Department of Transportation to define
transportation needs was the 1972 National Transportation Needs Study carried out
by local and state agencies. The scope of the study was not limited to basic
needs and the study produced what was, in effect, a 'wish, list'of all transportation
needs.
-------
13
In addition to the problems caused by a late start in considering transit
needs and conflicting purposes within government agencies, the Federal government's
attempts at reaching a uniform national definition of basic transportation needs
have been hampered by an emphasis in Federal policies on permitting local
governments to define their own basic needs. Recently, however, those policies
have been confronted by national concerns of increasing urgency. Among such
concerns are the needs of the elderly and handicapped; the need to improve and
protect the environment, to save energy, and to improve system efficiency (do more
with less). This last area of concern has manifested itself primarily in the
shift in concentration from long-range planning to short-range planning, from high
capital into low capital intensive investments.
Thus attempts to define basic transportation needs on a national level and
to formulate national transportation policies have been hindered by considerations
not traditionally associated with transportation needs: there is a need to provide
transportation for the elderly and handicapped; there is a need to have the
transportation sector contribute to cleaning up the environment; there is a need
to have the transportation sector conserve resources. Do any of these, if not
all of them, fall into the category of basic needs? Such considerations are likely
to have contributed to the absence of clear federal policy on BTN.
Impact of Federal Policies on the Operator's Definition of BTN
The operator's definition of BTN in the national context, as discussed earlier,
has focused on the physical resources needed to maintain and operate a system or
provide a specific transportation service. More recently, however, the same
national concerns which have influenced Federal policies are having a marked
impact on the operator's concept of basic transportation needs. In order to
continue their eligibility for federal aid, the operators, nationwide, are modifying
-------
14
their plans and programs in response to federal policies and regulations addressing
new issues of national needs.
Local Definition of BIN
The national concerns influencing the Federal government are also producing
a reaction from local governments. Sometimes the reaction is voluntary; sometimes
it is a response to the Federal "carrot and stick" approach. Certain state or
local governmental agencies have declared their own policies and objectives with
respect to some of the issues of concern and have actually redefined their
transportation needs to reflect and respond to these concerns. In the well known
Federal "carrot and stick" approach, federal funds and financial assistance are made
available to local governments contingent on the adoption of certain policies or
programs. Thus local priorities and definitions of local transportation needs
are being modified to reflect Federal concerns and priorities. Local programs are
beginning to reflect interest in conservation (low capital intensive projects),
energy, air quality improvements, as well as in the more traditional transportation
concerns such as improved safety, efficiency, and reliability. These areas of
improvement reflected in local programs are also, not surprisingly, seen in the
goals and objectives of many metropolitan areas today, particularly in dealing
with the transportation system management element of the regional transportation
plan.
In summary, there is no national consensus on the definition of basic
transportation needs, and any one definition may be a function of time, place
and political climate. The absence of a clear federal definition stems also
from the opposing influences of a desire to allow local governments to determine
their own needs and the presence of new issues requiring attention on a national
level. Local government and operator concepts of transportation needs are greatly
-------
15
influenced by Federal policies, in spite of the Federal government's attempt
to allow for local priorities.
II.C. Basic Transportation Needs in the New York Context
The examination of basic transportation needs on a national level provides
a useful background for a consideration of basic transportation needs in a
specific local context. The citizens of New York City, in addition to being
the people most affected by the proposed actions of the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission,
are uniquely qualified to comment on transportation needs and priorities.
Method of Analysis
Because the discussion is based on findings of survey research, special care
must be taken in distinguishing transportation needs from transportation priorities.
In the absence of any economic constraints or forced priorities, respondents to
surveys will manifest agreement on virtually any positive need posed to them.
Such subjective expressions of need have little meaning in an arena of limited
resources; what is more relevant to the allocation of resources is the rank order
of priorities that population groups assign to various needs.
Because the priorities of mass transportation users in New York City are
examined in a later section (III.C) of this report, this analysis of basic
transportation needs avoids discussion of transportation priorities as assessed
via survey measures. Also avoided are subjective expressions of needs, as
indicated by attitudes, in response to survey items, because these have—as already
stated—only limited meaning in the absence of real economic constraints. Instead,
this section will be confined to an assessment of the more objective indications
of basic transportation needs, as indicated by behavior, that have been gathered
by various governmental and public interest groups in the New York City area.
-------
16
Thus basic transportation needs are defined here as what various groups
in the population can be seen to need—by an independent analyst—by virtue
of their objective geographic, demographic, economic and social characteristics
(whether these are measured by private survey, government census, or some other
means). Transportation priorities, by contrast, are defined here as the
subjective rank orderings which users themselves give to various transportation
needs when these are posed to them in general surveys.
The analysis of basic transportation needs in New York City focuses on the
special needs of subgroups of the population as demarcated by five characteristics:
(1) location of residence (the different boroughs or districts of the city);
(2) age (with focus on the special needs of the young and elderly); (3) income
(with focus on the particular needs of the poor); (4) racial and ethnic minorities;
and (5) the handicapped. The essential strategy will be to attempt to ascertain,
using all available survey data, the basic transportation needs that might be
special to population groups defined by combinations of these characteristics.
A special note on the general consensus on the objective transportation needs
of specific population groups is in order here. The review of the several
government and private surveys reported here necessitated contact with representatives
of various federal, state and local government agencies, and of various civic
and public interest groups. From these contacts, there appeared to be little
disagreement on the general transportation patterns observed for various population
groups. Indeed, representatives from one agency or group readily cited data
gathered by other agencies or sources.
Basic transportation needs in New York are also analyzed in terms of the two
central modes of public transportation, subways and buses, with special attention
given to frequency of ridership complaints about the system.
-------
17
As discussed in the section on Study Methodology, this analysis of basic
transportation needs is based on the study of our compilation of all available
transportation surveys conducted in the New York City area in recent years. To
facilitate reading of the text and thus consideration of the conclusions drawn,
the Exhibits referred to have been grouped together in Appendix B.
Special Population Characteristics
Location of Residence: Of the approximately 7.9 million people in the five
boroughs, about 1.9 million are covered by express bus service, and 4.9 million
are covered by subway service (Exhibit II.C.I; the definition of coverage here is
that of Wilbur Smith and Associates, based on 1970 Census data). From these
figures- we see that 26 percent of the people in the five boroughs are not covered
by either express bus or subway, while 11 percent are covered by both; 13 percent
are covered only by express bus, and 51 percent only by subway.
The lack of coverage by either express bus or subway service for 26 percent
of the population may be considered a major transportation need of New York City.
In Manhattan, this is only 9 percent of the population; it increases to 44 percent
of the population of Staten Island and 45 percent of the population of Queens.
Exhibit II.C.2, a graph developed by the Regional Plan Association, shows
utilization of various transportation modes as a function of distance from
Manhattan: use of the subway increases as we move from central to non-central
Manhattan and the Bronx, then decreases again. The bus is important to people
located nearer the city center, while the automobile is increasingly used as one
moves away from the central city.
Exhibit II.C.3 contains the results of a poll by Louis Harris and Associates,
commissioned by the New York State Department of Transportation. It shows three
means of transportation into Manhattan and the population groups that rely on them,
-------
18
The table shows that Queens residents tend to rely more heavily on the
automobile, while the subway is most useful to residents of Brooklyn. Express
and local bus service is most useful to residents of Brooklyn. Express and local
bus service is most useful to residents of Manhattan and the Bronx.
Age: Exhibit II.C.3 also provides data on transit use by age group. The
young rely especially on the subway for transportation, while the middle-aged
groups rely on the automobile, and the elderly rely on bus service. These
patterns hold up well across the various other surveys of transportation that
have been conducted in the New York City area.
Exhibit II.C.4 presents data on work trips by age categories. For
transportation to work, younger age groups rely more on the subway, while older
age groups rely more on bus service and particularly on walking. This latter
mode reflects both the limited financial resources of many elderly, as well as
the location of many in central urban areas zoned for business and other employment.
Exhibit II.C.5 presents data comparable to that in Exhibit II.C.4 but for
nonwork trips; these are distinctly different in pattern from the work trips in
the previous exhibit. The younger age groups, which are less apt to walk to work,
are more likely to walk to nonwork activities. This is at least partly because
of New York City work patterns: many young people are employed in the financial
district of Lower Manhattan, where there is relatively little residential housing;
hence they cannot easily walk to work but are not reluctant to walk (or must often
walk) otherwise. The elderly age group, by contrast, relies more heavily on the
bus for nonwork purposes.
Income: Exhibit II.C.6 examines transit use by income groups. Seen in
this exhibit is a pattern that is not atypical of many other parts of the country:
higher income groups tend to rely more on the automobile for work trips. The bus
is used more by middle-income groups, while the subway is used predominantly by
low and lower-middle income groups.
-------
19
For nonwork trips, as shown in Exhibit II.C.7, the automobile is used
extensively by all income groups, but particularly by higher income groups.
The bus is much more important for nonwork trips, and for middle and lower
income groups, while the subway is less important in general for nonwork as
compared to work trips. Once again, these are patterns that persist across
the various other surveys of transportation that have been conducted in the
New York City area.
There is also a more complex interrelationship among population density,
income and transportation mode, as illustrated in Exhibit II.C.8. Here there
are three income groups: the upper 25 percent, the middle 59 percent, and the
lower 16 percent. As the exhibit shows, nctonly does the number of trips decline
as a function of the density of location, it also declines as a function of
income. As shown by the exhibit, for changes in the use of transit as a function
of density, the differences among income groupings become more acute as a direct
function of density. In other words, there are several extraneous factors
acting simultaneously on the choice of transportation mode by income.
Exhibit II.C.9 illustrates transportation needs in ten of the poorest
sections of New York City in 1969. As might be expected, availability of an
automobile declines sharply as a function of fannly income. This illustrates one
of the obvious basic transportation needs of New York City: the need for
inexpensive mass transportation to get workers in poorer areas to and from work.
Add to this the relationship illustrated in Exhibit II.C.10, that as the percentage
of families with incomes under $4,000 (in 1969) in an area increased, and
particularly in the ten areas of greatest poverty, the percentage of workers
relying on public transportation increased—up to the 65 to 70 percent level.
These data reinforce the conclusion that one of the obvious basic transportation
needs of New York City is to get workers in poorer areas of the city to and from
work.
-------
20
Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Transit use by racial and ethnic minorities •
is displayed in Exhibit II.C.ll on work trips. As the exhibit shows, Whites
are much more likely to use the automobile for work trips, while Blacks manifest
extraordinarily heavy reliance on the rail and subway system. Spanish-Americans,
in an interesting intermediate pattern, rely on rail and subway almost as much
as does the Black group, and on the automobile almost as much as does the White
group. This is at least partly due to the predominant patterns of Black, Uhite
and Spanish-American residences in the New York City area.
For nonwork trips, as shown in Exhibit II.C.12, the patterns delineated by
racial and ethnic variables are somewhat different from those for work trips.
The automobile remains predominantly the mode for Whites, the Black group shifts
from rail and subway to the bus system, and Spanish-Americans rely even more
heavily on the automobile.
The Handicapped: To examine transportation needs of the handicapped, we can
consider Exhibit II.C.13, which shows that about 7 percent of the residents of
New York City report that they have chronic health problems or are otherwise
handicapped. This handicapped category varies from only 3 percent of the Queens
population to about 10 percent of the population of the Bronx.
The implications of handicaps and other health impairments for public
transportation in New York City are demonstrated in Exhibit II.C.14. Five
distinct impairments afflict about two percent of those with health problems:
these impairments include the inability to go up stairs, to go down stairs, to
go up an incline, to stand for a long period of time, and to walk without
assistance for more than a block. Two percent of seven percent means that about
14 of every ten thousand New Yorkers cannot perform easily each of these five
basic functions (no data have been published on the overlap among these five
categories). Not all of those so handicapped regularly use public transportation,
-------
21
to be sure, but the difficulties of many who do must nevertheless be counted
among the basic transportation needs of New York City.
Central Modes of Public Transportation
The two central modes of public transportation, subways and buses, require
separate assessments, Exhibit II.C.15 compares the reliance on various
transportation modes in New York City with the rest of New York State. As
might be expected, there is much less reliance on the automobile, and much
greater reliance on the subway and bus, in the city than in the rest of the state.
Use of the Subway: As Exhibit II.C.16 shows, 77 percent of New York City
residents use the subway for shopping trips. For recreation, according to
Exhibit II.C.17, 89 percent of New York City residents travel via the subway. (It
must be noted for both of these exhibits that the percentages are for ever used
modes of transportation; the percentages in sum exceed 100 percent.) The
frequency of subway ridership displays differing patterns across the boroughs,
as shown by Exhibit II.C.18. Residents of Manhattan and Queens are more likely
to rely on the subway only occasionally, whereas residents of the Bronx and
Brooklyn constitute bimodal groups, with relatively larger numbers using the subway
either every day or rarely. Brooklyn residents rely on the subway more heavily
to get to work, as shown by Exhibit II.C.19, while residents of Manhattan and the
Bronx use it more for shopping, and residents of Queens use it more for
recreational purposes.
What do people think of the subway? As demonstrated by Exhibit II.C.20,
over half the residents of New York City (52 percent) think subway service is
getting worse; only two percent think it is getting better. It must also be noted
that these results were obtained in a survey conducted in 1978, before the recent
adverse publicity concerning violent crimes in the city subways.
-------
22
Why are people dissatisfied with the subway? As shown by Exhibit II.C.21,
dissatisfaction ranges from waiting times during rush hours to the hours of
available service. Most dissatisfied are those who use the subway to get to or
from Manhattan or the outer boroughs.
The magnitude of the rush hour on the subway is illustrated in Exhibit II.C.22.
As is immediately evident from this graph, subway passenger traffic crests between
eight and nine o'clock in the morning, and between five and six o'clock in the
afternoon. This is at least one primary cause of dissatisfaction with the time
it takes to travel during the rush hour; for those traveling outside of New York
City, the level of dissatisfaction is 50 percent (Exhibit II.C.23).
At the same time, however, people at least perceive a shorter wait time for
a subway in a rush hour than during a non-rush hour, and a shorter wait time for a
subway than for a bus. During the rush hour, the waiting time ranges from 4 to
10 minutes, with residents of the Bronx and Queens perceiving a somewhat shorter
waiting period. Durin the non-rush hour period, the perceived waiting time
increases to 11 to 20 ninutes, and there seems to be a consensus that it is about
t5 minutes (Exhibit II.C.24).
What are the specific complaints people have about the New York subway
system? Exhibit II.C.25 gives the answers: it is too crowded; they are terrified
of conditions found walking to and from the subway; other passengers are rowdy;
the lighting is poor (attitudes about subway fares will be discussed in
Section IV.B.4). As for what people think about while they are riding on the
New York City subway, it is worth noting that 11 percent of all passengers report
they think about the safety of the ride (Exhibit II.C.26).
Use of Buses: Ridership on New York City buses over the past ten years has
slowly leveled off at almost 400,000 per week. (Exhibit II.C.27) and the largest
group of riders is made up of persons earning between $3,000 and $9,000 a year
(Exhibit II.C.28). Rush hour on the buses is not quite as acute as it is on the
-------
23
subway. It is also spread over a larger time period: from 9 to 10 o'clock there
is a "second rush hour" of morning shoppers (Exhibit II.C.29).
What do people think about rush hour travel on the bus? The perceived
waiting period is from 4 to 15 minutes during rush hour and is somewhat longer
in the Bronx. The perceived waiting time during non-rush hours ranges from 11 to
13 minutes and again is longer in the Bronx (Exhibit II.C.30). Complaints
include that buses do not run often enough, that they are not dependable, that
there are not enough routes; these complaints are roughly the same magnitude as
complaints with bus service across New York State. Complaints that one cannot
depend on the schedule of buses, however, are much more frequent in New York City
than in other urban areas of the state (Exhibit II.C.31).
Analysis of the basic transportation needs of New York City, at least as
defined by objective geographic, demographic, economic and social characteristics
of residents, as measured by all of the recent surveys of the city, both government
and private leads to the conclusion that there is no reflection of an overall
feeling of a specific need, nor a particular dissatisfaction with current service,
in these data, but rather a cacophony of competing dissatisfactions and perceived
needs among various residential, age, income, racial and ethnic categories, and
special interest groups like the handicapped.
For this reason, the word "need" is inappropriately objective and artificial
in the current context. New York City does not have transportation "needs" so much
as it has competing interests toward changing and improving public transportation.
The surveys reviewed in this section establish these interests as possible trade-
offs for further action, but only the political process can establish in whose
interests each new transportation dollar will be spent.
-------
24
II.D Justification of the Basic Transportation Needs Definition in the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
Basic Transportation Needs Defined in Moym'han-Holtzman Submission
Five basic transportation needs are defined in the submission:
Fare Stability: It has been the expressed policy of the State government
to hold the New York City transit fare constant at the present level until 1981.
Fare stability is defined to mean no abrupt increases in fare. In the past, fares
remained constant for a period of years and then abruptly increased, typically
by 30 percent or 40 percent, as operating costs, especially wages, went up.
Such increases distress the public and result in reduced patronage. The fare
stability policy advocated by the State favors increasing the fare at a gradual
level each year at a rate of increase less than the increase in the cost of
living.
Operational Safety and Reliability; The submission states that the transit
system should provide a transportation alternative which is as safe or safer than
automobile travel. Reliability refers to the need to maintain current levels of
on-time performance.
Comfort: The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission specifies three measures of
improving comfort: reduce crowding, especially during certain times of the day
in certain areas of the subway system; reduce subway noise levels; provide air
conditioning for the subway system and buses.
Environment and Security: There is a basic need to maintain a transit
system whose stations are clean, well-lit, in good repair and free from crime.
Availability and Convenience of Service: There is a basic need to insure
that the public transportation system has convenient connections and adequate
coverage of the metropolitan area. Further, there is a basic need to insure that
the system will be accessible for use by elderly and handicapped individuals.
-------
25
Rationale For Basic Needs Definitions in Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
In establishing these five areas as basic transportation needs, the State
is acting in accordance with its particular function as a provider of public
transportation.
Within New York, responsibilities for planning, funding, and operating
public transportation are divided among several government levels. Planning for
transportation needs and mass transportation systems is accomplished primarily
at the city level by metropolitan governments and community planning boards.
Transportation planning also takes place at the regional level by the Tri-State
Regional Planning Commission. Operating and funding responsibilities, however,
are largely discharged at the State and Federal level. There are clear cut
distinctions among levels and functions, but a certain amount of overlap occurs.
The primary responsibilities of the State agencies involved with transit are in
operating and funding, rather than planning, and the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission reflects that viewpoint. The perspective of the authors of the
submission is clearly different than that of the New York City Planning Commission,
although the Submission draws heavily on CPC stated needs. While the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission advocates the needs of the city, it advocates those needs in
the context of competing needs of other metropolitan areas within New York State.
The State may find that if it specifies certain basic transportation needs for
the New York metropolitan area, it may be called upon to support those standards
as appropriate for other areas in the State. Since the submission has been
prepared by agencies involved in operating and funding, it attempts to balance
desirable and ideal levels of transportation service with available funding levels.
As an implementation plan, the submission must be realistic and implementable.
There are multiple interpretations of basic transportation needs given in
the submission. First is a general definition of needs as the amount and type of
investment needed to achieve a given standard or set of standards. Also mentioned
-------
26
are unrestrained needs, which are defined as those types and amounts of investment
needed to meet ideal standards. Plan level needs are mentioned as those put forth
by the New York City Planning Commission. Plan level needs are those required
to meet desirable standards.
In response to the Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment, the submission deals with
"basic" needs, which are defined by the State to be those improvements and
investments needed to keep the system going. One can defend the State's
interpretation of basic needs on two points. First, the existing public
transportation system in New York City and the surrounding region is the largest
transit system of any city in the United States and is among the largest in the
world. More New York residents ride public transit than in any other area, and
New York public transportation is available as an alternative to the automobile.
Second, there is a strong commitment by government to provide funding and
public transportation service in the region; this commitment extends to all levels
of government and has been manifested in Federal policy as well. The submission,
therefore, contains an interpretation of basic needs which the State believes is
relevant to the New York situation and draws on local priorities. Such a definition
of basic needs may not be common to other areas in the United States where transit
service is not quite as pervasive.
II.E Critique of the M-H Submission Definition of Basic Transportation Needs
The definition of "basic transportation needs" in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission is such that "needs" are financial resource requirements, i.e., dollars.
It is very clearly stated in the report that the various elements of basic
transportation needs are stated in terms of X dollars for this and Y dollars for
that. The focus on the dollar requirement is so pointed that the physical,
operational, and managerial improvements to transportation systems are presented
-------
27
as if they are of secondary importance. Rather than focusing on the mobility
requirements, the report focuses on the financial resource requirements.
Certainly the financial resources necessary to implement transportation
improvements are of utmost importance; however, basic transportation needs are the
mobility requirements of the people that work and live in New York City. These
mobility requirements include being able to get from point A to point B in
reasonable comfort, within a reasonable time, at a reasonable cost. These are
the needs, and those aspects of the existing transportation system that require
improvement or maintenance so that the mobility requirements of the area are
satisfied should have been the primary focus of this report. The money necessary
to achieve those mobility ends is important but only intermediary to those basic
transportation needs.
The five problem areas of transportation improvement and maintenance
identified in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission and listed above are, at several
points, termed "needs", as they should be; however, the financial requirements,
rather than the solutions for the problem areas are emphasized as the needs.
The five areas are simply presented without any priority being stated, except for
what can be inferred from the financial resources allocated to each.
The five areas defined seem to be adequate categories that are sufficiently
broad to include transportation needs as derived from either operational, political
or user points of view.
However, it is the consensus of the study team that all relevant definitions
of basic transportation needs are rooted in the need to maintain mobility for
individuals. Other transportation-related policies, such as economic development,
energy conservation, environmental protection, and income redistribution, all
influence the viewpoints of actors in the provision of transportation funds and
service. However, these aspects serve only to constrain or modify the requirements
-------
28
for individual mobility. Thus, in order to be most responsive to the needs of
individuals, the drafters of the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission should have adhered
to a definition of basic transportation needs which more explicitly advocated
the user's point of view.
-------
29
III. PERFORMANCE, STANDARDS, AND PRIORITIES IN
FULFILLMENT OF BASIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
III.A Standards Used in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
In the previous chapter, the five categories of basic transportation
needs found in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission were presented. In order
to determine the degree to which these needs will be satisfied by various
transit improvements, it is necessary to establish standards against which
one can measure system performance. In this chapter, the specific standards
proposed by the state are presented and discussed. They are compared to in-
dustry standards and evaluated with respect to local priorities.
The standards presented for the five basic transportation needs defined
in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission are as follows:
Fare Stability: Transit fares should remain constant with respect to
the cost of living through 1981. This standard is stated; no supporting
documentation nor justification for such a standard is presented.
Operational Safety and Reliability: With respect to safety, the region's
public transit system is to be as safe or safer than the automobile and not
sujstantially more unsafe than comparable transit systems around the country.
With respect to reliability, only a tentative standard of 9055 average daily
reliability is set. This reliability standard is presented vis-a-vis vehicle
on-time performance, rather than person-trip on-time performance.
Comfort; For two comfort parameters, crowding and noise, standards
are discussed but none are presented. A strong standard is put forward for
air conditioning and heating units.
-------
30
Environment and Security: Only transit stations are included in the
discussion and the standard is that they be "secure from crime and vandalism,
brightly lit, supplied with easy to understand signs, kept in good repair
and kept clean of litter, dirt and foul odors."
Availability and Convenience of Service: The standard is pointedly
stated as "...a system serving 90% of the population in dense...areas with
an arrangement of routes that is convenient for travel desires and about
which information is both comprehensible and available." An additional
aspect to the standard addresses the special mobility needs of the handi-
capped and elderly by stating that their mobility needs be "met at a reason-
able cost."
III.B. -Comparison of MHS Performance Criteria With The Transit Industry
Unfortunately there are no criteria for transit performance that are
accepted as industry-wide "benchmarks." There are no universally accepted
performance measures, standards for these measures, or definitions of the
few criteria which are commonly used. The standards for the five basic
transportation needs set forth in the Submission are each examined in terms
of the following four areas:
1. Performance of comparable transit systems in the U.S.
2. Criteria and standards proposed by other metropolitan area
planning agencies.
3. Internal consistency of the submission.
4. Consistency with plans and concepts of other organizations which
deal with New York City transit.
Each of the five basic transportation needs will be presented and discussed
individually.
-------
31
Fare Stability
The fare stability criteria allows the fare to increase at a rate no
greater than the cost of living, through small annual increases.
The economic viability of the stabilization will be addressed in detail in Chapter V.
Fare stabilization falls under the broader heading of fare policy and
pricing. Industry wide, the issue of fare structure is receiving close
examination because of the rising deficits facing transit operators. In gen-
eral, pricing policies affect two basic areas: revenue and ridership. Fares
can be set to increase revenue or ridership. Increased ridership increases
transit usage and promotes other community goals, i.e., improved mobility for
various user groups, energy conservation, reduction of air pollution, etc.
(Public Technology, Inc., 1977). Fare stability is a policy aimed at increas-
ing ridership rather than revenue.
With the exception of particular segments of the population and certain
non-essential trips, transit ridership, in general, has a low sensitivity to
fare. The sensitivity is, however, strongly influenced by the manner in which
fare changes are instituted. Figure III.B.I shows a history of ridership on
the New York City system superimposed with a time plot of fare. The NYC fare
policy has been to implement changes in quantum jumps as opposed to gradual
increases.Although declining ridership can be attributed to many causes, when
major fare increases occur (as in 1949), a significant decrease in ridership
results. A smaller change in fare gives rise to a smaller decline in rider-
ship levels; this is substantiated by the New York transit ridership data.
Nationwide, fare structures are becoming more sophisticated. In
attempting to make fares more equitable, many urban areas have implemented
(or are contemplating) fare structures which are distance and/or time-of-day
dependent and offer reduced rates for certain select groups (school children,
elderly, etc.). The fare structure in NYC is the conventional flat fare with
-------
32
Revenue
Ptsjengers
(«rfU1on)
3000
2500
2000
1SOO
1000
500
50
40
Fire
(e)
20
10
1940
1950
I960
1970
1980
Figure III.3.1
NYC TtinsU Rldtrshlp and Fire History
-------
33
some groups receiving discounts. Implementing a more sophisticated fare
structure requires concomitant sophistication in fare-collection equipment,
such as the magnetic fare cards used on the Washington, D.C. Metro system.
However, the size of the NYC system and the lack of reliable computerized
fare-collection equipment make the implementation of complex fare structures
inadvisable at this time.
From policy, planning, and operational points of view, fare stabili-
zation is a logical objective. However, the economic consequences of this
policy may very well negate its advantages. This is discussed in detail in
Chapter V. It should be noted, however, that fare stability, when defined
as a continuing pattern of small annual increases, may prove to be a political
liability for elected officials. The public would be faced with repeated
annual fare increases which might prove embarrassing to incumbent officials,
who would be criticized for their inability to contain rising costs. It
may prove easier for officials to seek larger increases at less frequent inter-
vals, particularly in years when no elections are pending.
In the long run, more sophisticated fare structures may prove not only
more equitable, but politically more acceptable, since fares could be raised
or lowered for selected areas within the region, or for selected services, or
user groups, rather than for the metropolitan area as a whole. It would
even be possible to lower some fares while simultaneously increasing others.
With the current fare structure, differential increases or decreases are possible,
but only on a gross scale.
-------
34
Operational Safety and Reliability
Safe, reliable service is the fundamental goal of any transit system.
Safety and reliability will be examined separately.
Safety: The standard for safety proposed in the Moynihan-Holtzman
submission is two-fold: (1) the system should be as safe, or safer, than the
automobile, (2) the accident rate should not be substantially greater than
that of comparable transit systems in the U.S. Initially, one would believe
the above standard to be quite appropriate; however, deeper consideration
reveals that the standard is meaningless with respect to improving or even
maintaining the current level of safety in the New York system.
First of all, transit has been shown to be a much safer mode of
transportation than the automible; consequently, the first part of the proposed
standard is completely superfluous to assuring a safe transit system.
Compared to other large transit systems, the New York system has a
remarkable record of safety (Mass Transit,1978). Shown in Figure III.B.2
is a comparison of operational safety for the major U.S. transit systems.
Safety is measured in terms of accident rate (accidents per million vehicle-
miles). This accident data, reported to the Federal Railroad Administration,
is for only one year, 1976. As can be seen, the accident rate (excluding
New York City Transit Authority, NYCTA) varies from 0.2 for Philadelphia
(SEPTA) to 1.3 for Cleveland (GCRTA). The average accident rate for the eight
systems (excluding NYCTA) is 0.54 accidents per million vehicle-miles. The
NYCTA accident rate is 0.06; consequently, number of accidents could increase
over 9-fold and still the system would satisfy the proposed safety standard.
-------
1.50
1.25
35
1.00
-8-g
0.75
0.50
0.25
fi
« V
•^ tfl
BART
(SF)
CTA GCRTA MBTA PATH Linden- SIROTA SEPTA
(Chi) (Clev) (Bos) (NJ-NY) wold (Staten (Phil)
Island)
Figure III.3.2
1976 Accident Rate for Major U.S. Rapid Rail Transit System
Avg.
NYCTA
(NYC)
-------
36
NYCTA records passenger incidents on an annual basis. Incidents
reported are occurrences which may or may not have resulted in personal
injury or property damage (NYCTA,1975). As distinguished from accidents,
incidents may not necessarily involve train operations. Rock throwing,
slipping and falling are examples of incidents. Figure III.B.3 shows the
ten-year trend in the passenger incident frequency rate (incidents per
million passengers carried) for NYCTA. This historical perspective indicates
that the NYCTA is a relatively safe system and that safety is steadily improv-
ing.
Dade County, Florida is in the planning stages for a private right-
of-way transit system. Their proposed safety standard is that passenger
safety "should exceed, or at least be equal to, that of the safest major
rapid transit system now operating in North America" (Kaiser Engineers,1975).
The objective of criteria and standards is to promote the improvement
or, at least maintenance, of existing characteristics of the system. In
this case, the proposed safety standard is unduly lax to the point that the
level of safety could be substantially degraded. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
should adopt a more stringent-standard to i-feet, the basic need:far-safety.
Reliability: An issue paper from a recent conference on transit per-
formance (Public Technology, Inc.,1978) states that:
Transit service is reliable when:
• schedules are adhered to
t no scheduled trips are missed
The state defines operational reliability in terms of the average on-time
performance of the system. On-time is defined in the submission as being no
more than four minutes late. The average is calculated with abandoned (annulled)
trips excluded; consequently, if a train or bus is taken out of service, it
does not affect operational reliability. This definition is totally system-
-------
37
FREQ,
RATE
9, OH
8,0-
7,0-
6,0-
5,0-
4,0-
3,0-
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
Figure III.B.3
Passenger Incident Frequency Rate as Reported by
The New York City Transit Authority
(NYCTA [1975])
-------
38
sriented rather than user-oriented.
The reliability standard proposed is 90 percent, i.e., on the average
90% of the trains and buses should adhere to within four minutes of their
posted schedule. The following aspects of this standard make it distinguish-
able from other proposed reliability standards: first, the single standard is
inclusive of private right-of-way (r-o-w) modes (subway and commuter rail) as well
as buses which compete for space with the automobile and taxi. Private
r-o-w vehicles should maintain better schedule adherence and therefore
support a higher standard of reliability (Pennsylvania Department of Trans-
portation (Penn DOT) ,1973). Second, the standard is independent of scheduled
time headway. It is generally accepted that schedule adherence is more critical
to routes with long time headwaysand less for short headways (Penn DOTf1973i
Public Technology, Inc., 197.7). Third, the definition of "on-time" varies:
according to N.Y. State, on-time is 0.4 minutes late; according to Penn Dot,
on-time is 0-5 minutes late; according to Maryland-National Capital (1978),
on-time is not more than one ninute early, nor three minutes late.
Consequently, it is impossible to critique the specific standard of 90% proposed
by the State.
Tabl'e III.B.I presents the operational reliability standard adopted by
Penn DOT (1973). A reporting requirement is specified if the standard is not
satisfied. That is, the public must be notified of the cause and expected duration
of the delay. Such a requirement is not addressed in the state's submission. The
1977 on-time performance statistics for New York City transit, as presented in the
submission, are given below:
Subway: 98% with 1% Annulled* Conrail: 89%
SIRT: 97% Bus: 95% with 4% Annulled
LIIUl: 37%
*The Department of city Planning (1978) indicates that the subway annul!ment
rate is 2% whereas the submission states 1%.
-------
39
TABLE III.B.I
Operational Reliability Standard
from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT [1973])
SII-B9; On systems operating exclusively on private rights-of-way, at least
95 percent of trips should operate on time.* For surface lines, the schedule
adherence criteria can vary with quantity of service provided as shown by the
following table:
SCHEDULE ADHERENCE:
Minimum percent of service on time
TIMS PERIOD HEADWAY
0-10 minutes 10 - 30 minutes Special
hours 75 85 95
Off-peak hours 80 95 95
Weekend 80 95 95
Where percentages of service fall below these minimum standards, the agency
shall submit an analysis of delays and a discussion of possible improvements.
Common causes include:
1. General traffic delays
2. Mechanical failures
3. Emergencies and inclement weather
4. Unusually frequent or prolonged passenger stops
5. Unrealistic schedules
6. Inadequate layover periods
* On-time operation is 0 - 5 minutes late.
-------
40
It should be noted that "basic transportation needs" refer to personal
mobility; however, the state's definition of reliability is totally system
oriented. In order to make reliability standards relevant to the basic
transportation needs of users, it would be necessary to adopt new kinds of
reliability measures. For example, system-wide performance standards tend to
obscure the fact that some lines operate on-tine in non-rush hours, but have
severe delays regularly during rush hours. On-time performance standards should
be applied to each line, by time of day, and possibly weighted by the number
of users who are inconvenienced. Similarly, a single criterion for on-time
performance, such as being less than four minutes late, does not adequately
measure the extra time penalty a user must typically add to his travel time to
be certa-in of arriving when planned. However, user-oriented criteria such as
the above are not yet accepted by the transit industry, and considerable research
would be necessary to determine the most appropriate measures and performance levels,
Comfort
The comfort criteria are divided into three basic areas: crowding, air-
conditioning, and noise. For crowding the standard is available floor space
per passenger during the peak hour; the proposed standard is four square feet
per passenger. This is at the very low end of the "reasonable accepted" level
for crowding conditions as put forth by the Department of City Planning (1978).
The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission suggests five square feet per
passenger. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (1973) says that the
amount of floor space should be dependent upon the trip length. For less than
15 minutes trip time, five square feet per passenger would be sufficient. For
longer trips, all passengers should be seated. Five square feet per passenger
basically implies that for every seated passenger one will be standing.
The Regional Planning Association states in the Region's Agenda (1978),
"The service quality provided in this Region is far below the standards in
the rest of the nation. Despite declines in patronage, New York subways remain
-------
41
)ver-crowded. Of the 21 rapid transit tracks feeding Manhattan, 70 percent
arovide less than five square feet of vehicle floorspace per passenger during
rush hours and often between rush hours; in the rest of the country, only 24
percent of the 30 tracks entering the other eight downtowns with rail provide
less than this standard."
Initially one might think that increasing the number of trains or cars
per train would be sufficient to alleviate this problem. However, some lines
are currently operating at or near capacity (DCP, 1973). To achieve the more
universally accepted standard of five square feet per passenger would require
either new subway construction or substantially improved bus lines to attract
riders from the subway. Neither of these alternatives is discussed by the
state.
The second aspect of comfort is air conditioning. The submission
states that eventually all vehicles will be air conditioned. The Penn DOT
1973 guidelines indicate that "if prudent" air conditioning should be provided,
and there is no generally accepted standard with respect to air conditioning.
There are four issues germane to the discussion of air conditioning (AC)
which the state does not address:
1. Days in operation—New York City's climate would permit air
conditioning to be used for only a few months during each year.
2. Reliability and maintenance requirements—AC units, like all
mechanical equipment, will require servicing. Will a vehicle be
taken out of service if the AC is not operating? If not, is the
vehicle satisfying this basic standard?
3. Light-weight power rails—several segments of the subway system
are equipped with power rails that are of insufficient size to
handle the additional load of the AC units (DCP, 1978).
4. Energy usage—to conserve energy, President Carter set a minimum
level of 78° F. for summertime temperatures in air conditioned public
-------
42
buildings. AC requires excessive amounts of energy and also generates
heat which is exhausted into the already hot subway tunnels. This will
increase the heat at the stations and the load on the AC units themselves.
The third area under comfort is noise. The submission states that
the system is too noisy but that specific noise standards have not been set.
The age and condition of vehicles and rails are factors greatly influencing
transit system noise levels—interior, in-station and in-community. Data
presented in the report "Noise in the New York City Transit System; Abatement
Methodology and Cost Estimate" (McShane and Slutsky, 1975) support the premise
that the NY system is as noisy or noisier than the Boston system, which is
also considered to be too noisy (Kurzweil, et al 1974).
The three areas of comfort—crowding, air conditioning, and noise—are
treated independently in the Submission; however, a certain interaction does
exist. In-vehicle noise levels can be reduced if the vehicles are air con-
ditioned because the windows would remain closed. In addition, crowding is
less critical if in-vehicle temperature and humidity are controlled. These
interactions are not fully treated in the Submission.
Environment and Security
The submission states that the station which meets the standards for
basic needs will be secure from crime and vandalism, brightly lit, supplied
with easy to understand signs, kept in good repair and kept clear of litter,
dirt and foul odors. Similar statements are made in the guidelines from the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (1973) with respect to stations.
There are two aspects of security: crime and vandalism. One of the
problems with actually assessing rates and developing standards appropriate
for crime is the absence of systematic and accurate reporting. In addition,
there is a significant disparity between actual crime levels for transit and
the crime levels perceived by potential users, and that is the real root of
the problem.
-------
43
Comparison of crime rates for various systems must be viewed with
skepticism due to the lack of systematic reporting. The following crime
statistics are presented merely to illustrate that the occurrence of crimes
in the NYC transit system is not significantly higher (or lower) than comparable
systems in the U.S. Figure III.B.4 presents the reported 1971 transit crime
rate (total acts of crime per 100,000 revenue passengers) for systems in
Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia (Thrasher and Schnell 1974).
It appears that the transit crime rate is not significantly higher than
elsewhere; user perceptions, however, might be otherwise. This is discussed
in Section III.C of this report.
Total
Crime
per
100,000
revenue
passengers
Bos Chi NYC PATH SEPTA
Figure III.B.4
1971 Transit Crime Rate for Major U.S. Rapid Rail Transit System
-------
44
tvai lability and Convenience
The availability and convenience of transit are two characteristics
ihich significantly affect a tripmaker's decision to use transit. In general,
:ransit ridership is more sensitive to the quality of service than to the
:ost; consequently, transit availability and convenience are fundamental
ittributes if transit is to be a viable alternative to the auto.
The standard for availability proposed by the State is that 90$ of
:he population in the dense portion of the city should be served. However,
'service area" and "dense portion" are never defined. No indication is made
is to the accessibility of transit to employment, commercial, and recreational
spportunities in the area.
Convenience is defined in terms of arrangement of routes, comprehensible
and available information, and assurance of mobility for the elderly and handi-
capped. No performance measures for convenience are addressed in the submission.
\ typical measure of transit convenience is travel time ratio: the ratio of
transit travel time to auto travel time (Sloan ,1979). The directness of service
defined in terms of the frequency and delay incurred by transfers is another
neasure of convenience (Alter,1978).
With respect to the bus operations, there are three operational inadequacies
that detract from its convenience (DCP.1978):
1. Antiquated route structure—existing routes are essentially unchanged
from the original routes which follow the old trolley-car lines,
though travel patterns have shifted from the earlier years.
2. Inequitable transfer policy—not only are the bus transfer policies
inequitable, they are not well publicized. DCP (1978) cites
examples of trips for which the fare for one direction is 50 cents
while the return fare is a dollar.
-------
45
3. Incomplete and unavailable information—a major deterrent to transit
usage is the lack of knowledge of how to use the system.
The issue of transportation needs of the elderly and handicapped is
insufficiently addressed in the submission. Major equipment, station, and
operational changes must be instituted to accommodate the "basic transportation
needs" of the elderly and handicapped, but the entire issue is avioded.
Criteria Omitted in the Submission
Throughout this section various definitions, criteria, and standards
used by other organizations were discussed. Criteria which are relevant to
"basic transportation needs" but omitted in the State's Submission are presented:
1) Although not strictly a user-oriented criterion, vehicle utilization is an
important measure of system performance. Effective use of equipment minimizes
cost and maximizes performance (Fielding, Gauthier, and Lave,1977). 2) If
transit is to be a viable alternative to auto use, the relative travel times
and costs for similar journeys by auto and transit must be considered and used
as a performance standard for the system (Penn DOT, 1973). 3) With respect
to directness of Service, convenient transit implies few transfers and minimal
delay (wait time) at the transfer points (Alter, 1978). 4) Criteria to measure
the effectiveness of marketing programs to insure J-hat the public is made aware
of transit service and incentive programs to make transit more attractive
(Penn DOT, 1973). 5) Finally, basic transportation needs refer to the mobility
of people, not the movement of vehicles; consequently, performance criteria,
definitions, and standards should be user-oriented (Alter, 1978).
III.C. Local User Priorities in Evaluating Performance
While the evaluation of performance standards and criteria presents
planners' projections and goals for the functioning of a transit system, the
evaluation of performance by users of a transit system provides insight into
the assessments and priorities of those experiencing the system as it exists.
Therefore, this section is devoted to the priorities of local users in evaluating
-------
46
performance. Like Section II.C on the basic transportation needs themselves,
this section is based on findings of survey research. Unlike Section II.C.,
however, this section will give lesser weight to objective geographic, demographic,
economic and social characteristics as determinants of transportation needs,
and much more wieght to an assessment of subjective expressions of personal
priorities. Transportation priorities are defined here as the subjective rank
orderings which local users themselves give to various personal transportation
needs when these are posed to them in general surveys. The discussion here
will review public expressions of interest in each of seven general areas:
hours of service, proximity of routes, waiting time, on-time service, travel
time, security, and fare structure. Particular interests and priorities in
transportation improvements will also be considered. The survey data discussed
can be found in Appendix C.
General Concerns Expressed
Security: Technical industry standards for measuring crowding on mass
transit (presented in Section III.B.), stated the criteria in terms of square
feet per person. From the transit user's perspective, such objective standards
are not nearly as important as several more subjective ones: possible sexual,
racial and ethnic differences with other passengers, perceptions of their per-
sonal cleanliness and hygiene, and perceptions that they will inflict physical
injury. These are the unspoken variables of suspicion, prejudice, and fear
just beneath the surface of survey questions like "Do you feel comfortable with
the kind of people riding on the ?" Women tend toward greater use of the
bus, for example, while men more strongly favor the subway; hence user perceptions
of these modes are colored by perceptions of their typical riders.
Do New York City residents feel comfortable riding the bus and subway?
The available survey data reveal considerable feelings of insecurity, especially
for women on the subway. In addition, it must be noted that all of these data
-------
47
were obtained before the recent adverse publicity concerning violent crimes
in the city subways; hence current surveys are likely to report even greater
feelings of apprehensiveness.
Hours of Service: In examining the degree of public staisfaction with
the buses as compared to subways, one sees that although people are relatively
satisfied with the hours of both, there is somewhat more dissatisfaction with
buses; this is especially true for those who have no choice but to ride buses.
Comparing automobile drivers with nondrivers, one finds much the same patterns:
greater dissatisfaction with the hours of buses compared to those of subways.
Proximity of Routes: Does public transportation in New York City
take people where they want to go? There seems to be general consensus that
this is indeed the case. Especially for commuters whose trip origin is Manhattan,
there is relatively substantial agreement that public transportation takes them
where they want to go.
Waiting Time: There seems to be relative satisfaction with the waiting
time for transportation service, even during rush hour, and especially among
males for the wait for the subway. Satisfaction with the waiting time for
buses is at approximately the same level.
On-Time Service: In comparisons of automobile, bus, and subway t,avel
during rush hours, there appears to be somewhat more dissatisfaction with delays
of the automobile; the subway, by contrast, seems to satisfy riders with its
on-time performance, once again doing substantially better than the bus. Compar-
ing these three modes by destination of the commuter, we find particular dissatis-
faction with the automobile for those bound for Manhattan or outside of New York
City; there is about the same degree of dissatisfaction with the subway.
/
Travel Time: Surprisingly, people who are able to choose the auto-
mobile over alternative means of transportation available to them tend to be
dissatisfied with their travel time, while those who have no viable alternative
to the automobile tend to find travel time much more satisfying. As one might
-------
48
expect, there is more satisfaction with the performance of the subway among
those who choose to take it. Once again, there is comparatively greater
dissatisfaction with the travel times of all three modes of transportation,
even comparing automobile drivers with nondrivers.
Fare Structure or Cost: There is not much difference between buses and
subways in terms of user satisfaction with fare structure. In general, users
tend to express more dissatisfaction with fares than do non-users. For example,
automobile drivers are more dissatisfied with the cost of the automobile than
are nondrivers, while subway riders are more dissatisfied with subway fares
than are nonusers. It should be noted that all of the data reported here were
obtained before the most recent gasoline crisis, although it is not clear what
effect this might have had on the structure of survey responses concerning the
costs of sutomobile travel relative to the fare structure of other transportation
modes.
Particular Interests and Priorities in Transportation Improvements
As mentioned in Section II.C, respondents to surveys will manifest
agreement to virtually any positive need posed to them, a fact which must be
weighed seriously in considering the absolute percentages of positive responses
to various needs. The relative percentages of responses, by contrast, can serve
as a useful indicator of the rank order of public priorities, which is the
definition of transportation priorities—as obtained via survey methods—that
is employed here.
An alternative means of assessing transportation priorities using
survey research methods is to ask respondents to rank order a set of measures
directly. This technique has the shortcoming that rankings will depend, in
part, on what other measures are offered in the same set.
When asked directly about what transportation improvements they would
like to see, respondents listed the following (in order): more rush hour buses,
* guaranteed seat, around-the-clock operations. In another study comparing the
-------
49
priorities of men and women, the same three items were ranked by both sexes
in the same three top positions:
1. safety
2. clean vehicles
3. on-time arrival.
After these items, priorities differ somewhat between men and women.
It is important to note that cost was given 1ower priority than the
above three items by both men and women; it was ranked fourth by men and fifth
by women. In general, the cost of travel is considered important—but by no
means most important—in a wide range of different studies of the various
transportation modes.
In general, there is considerable satisfaction with hours of service,
proximity of routes, and waiting time; somewhat less satisfaction with on-time
service and travel time; and widespread apprehensiveness about security. Fare
structures and costs are important—but not overwhelming—priorities among New
York City transit users. Factors like safety, cleanliness, guaranteed seats,
and rapid, on-time arrival appear to be among the priorities users might consider
before the stability of transit fares.
III.D. Local Government Priorities
Making the transition from the perceived public attitudes discussed
above to priorities as expressed by government is somewhat difficult. The only
measure of government priorities that one can reasonably examine is the way in
which government allocates public monies. Thus, one can consider relative ex-
penditure levels for the five categories of basic transportation needs defined
by the MOynihan-Holtzman Submission as indicative of the priority level assigned
them by the government.
The biggest of the five categories is clearly fare stability. Indeed,
the order in which the five categories are presented in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission is a rank ordering by level of expenditure. Relative to past fund-
-------
50
ing levels, the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission proposes to virtually double
expenditures in every category. It should be noted that many categories
of transit spending are subsumed under the heading of "fare stability,"
and it is difficult to discuss funding need categories separately. In order
to evaluate the relative funding of various categories of transit need, one
must assume a more or less fixed total subsidy for transit, and a variable
total farebox revenue contingent upon fare level and ridership. Thus, a
rise in fare would lead to increased revenues which could, in turn, release
subsidy funds for other categories. Likewise, to hold the fare constant,
with a fixed subsidy, requires shifting funds away from.various improvement
categories to cover increased operating and maintenance costs.
One should look at the relative rankings of the expenditures in
each different category and the changes implicit in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission. Table III.D.I presents a priority index based on per capita
expenditures for Fare Stability, Operational Safety and Reliability, Comfort1,
and Environment and Security. Cleanliness and convenience are not considered
because the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission does not contain itemized expenditures
for those aspects of transportation. The index is constructed using per capita
expenditures on Fare Stability as a basis, designated as 100 for both past and
proposed funding levels.
Looking at past expenditures, it is clear that fare stability has been
more than three times as important as the next highest category, operational safety
*For purposes that are apparent in other parts of the analysis, expenditures for
new or renovated buses or transit cars are included in the comfort (air conditioning)
category rather than the operational safety and reliability category.
-------
51
TABLE III.D.I
PRIORITY INDICES
FOR EXPENDITURES ON THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES
OF BASIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
(PAST AND PROPOSED)1
PAST PROPOSED
Fare Stability 100 100
Operational Safety 30 21
/2
and Reliability"
2
jmfort
Environment and Security 5 7
Comfort2 24 17
Past is based on average for 1975 through 1978. Proposed is average
annual expenditures for basic transportation needs. Both are
taken from the Moynihan Holtzman Submission.
2
Expenditures on new and renovated buses or transit cars are
included in the comfort category rather than the operational
safety and reliability category.
-------
52
and reliability. Fare stability was four times more important than comfort
and twenty times more important than environment and security. This presumably
reflects political realities in New York City.
When the indices for proposed expenditures are examined, it appears that
comfort, operational safety and reliability will receive smaller proportions.
Fare stability will increase to five times the level of funding for operational
safety and reliability, and six times more than comfort. Only environment and
security has increased in importance relative to fare stability, but it still
has an index value of only 7. The apparent preeminence of fare stability is
in marked contrast to the public attitudes discussed above. It appears that
New York is giving this issue much more attention than is warrented.
Another finding emerges when expenditures for bus and subway systems
are considered separately (see Tables III.D.2 and III.D.3). On a per capita
basis, total past capital expenditures on subways have been over two and one-
half times those for buses. On a per revenue passenger basis, however, expendi-
tures for buses have been slightly above those for subways. In the comfort
category, which includes expenditures for new and renovated vehicles, the
pattern is different, with twice as much per capita having been spent on buses.
The expenditures proposed in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission continue this
pattern—the funding levels, however, are essentially double.
It appears from these data that New York has been favoring its bus system
relative to the subway system. This has user group implications, since it was
shown earlier that the bus system tends to serve the elderly and middle income
groups and women, while the subway serves the poor, racial minorities, and male
travelers.
-------
Fare Stability
(Govt. Assistance)
Operational Safety
and Reliability
Comfort
Environment and
Security
Total Capital
TABLE 111.0,2
NORMALIZED EXPENDITURES
(M-H Average Annual)
Per
Transit
Per Rev.
Per Rev.
Vehicle Per
Bus
Per Rev.
Per Rev.
Vehicle Per
Total
Per Rev.
Per Rev.
Vehicle
Capita Passenger Mile
Capita Passenger Mile
not not
appllc. appllc.
not not not
appllc. appllc. appllc.
not $100.60
appllc.
Capita Passenger Hlle
$0.54
$20.65a $0.148a $0.861a $0.00
$0,00
a,b a.b a,b
$33.91 $0.243 $1.266 $11.02 $0.238
$2.419
$0.00 $20,65a $0.111a $0.685a
$ 6.28 $0.045 $0.190 $11.02 $0.238 $1.295 $17.30 $0.093 $0.416
$ 6.98b $0.050b $0.215b $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 6.98b $0,037b $0.171b
a.b.c a.b.c a.b.c
$1.295 $44.93 $0.241 $1.276
en
co
a Assumes all expenditures under "(TA) other" are for transit, does not include $9.0 million for SIRT or $4.70 million
for commuter rail.
b Does not Include $1.0 million for S.I. ferry.
c Does not Include operating expenditures for fare stability.
-------
TABLE 111,0,3
NORMALIZED EXPENDITURES
(Past Average - 1975 thru 1978)
Fare Stability
(Govt. Assistance)
Operational Safety
and Reliability
Transit Bus Total
Per Rev. Per Rev.
Per Per Rev. Vehicle Per Per Rev. Vehicle Per Per Rev.
Capita Passenger Mile Capita Passenger Mile
Per Rev.
Vehicle
not not
appHc. appllc.
not not not not
appllc. appllc. appllc. appllc.
Capita Passenger Mile
$37.33C $0.200C
$11.30a $0.081a $0.342* $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11.30a $0.061a
$0.898C
$0.272a
Comfort
Environment and
Security
Total Capital
$ 3.07 $0.022 $0.093 $6.00 $0.130
$ 1.81b $0.013b $0.055b $0.00 $0.00
$16.18a>b $0.116a>b $0.490* $6.00 $0.130
$0.705 $ 9.07 $0.049
$0,00 $ l.Blb $0.010b
a,b a,b
$0.705 $22.18 $0.120
$0.218
$0.044
a.b
$0.534
a Assumes all expenditures under "(TA) Other" are for transit, does not Include $8.0 million for S.I.R.T. or $38 million
for commuter rail.
Does not Include $5 million for commuter rail.
Average of 1978 and 1979.
-------
55
Thus, among the government's apparent transportation priorities, fare stability
is clearly dominant. Capital expenditures tend to favor bus riders over sub-
way riders, even though there are almost four times as many subway revenue
passengers as bus revenue passengers. It was not possible, however, to rank
the bus system and the subway system in terms of the overall quality of the
capital plant or the need for capital investment. It might also be noted
that the federal government seems more likely to accept a grant application
for buses than for rail transit, simply because rail transit expenditures tend
to have longer term capital requirements at much higher levels.
-------
56
IV. EVALUATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS TO MEET BASIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
IV.A Actions Proposed in Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission proposed actions in five categories to
address the Basic Transportation Needs. These action are: management improvements,
fare stability, rehabilitation of public transit, improvement and promotion of
mass transit service, and improving transit support systems. The first action,
management improvements, which overlaps the fourth action, addresses issues of
improved transit service and aims to improve transit service and reduce operating
costs through management changes and reorganization. The actions required,
however, are vague and undefined, primarily because they are predicated on a
Management Study that had not been completed.
The Fare Stability Action calls simply for maintaining the current fare
through 1981 and increasing it gradually thereafter at a rate less than the cost-
of-living. This action is stated in a very straight-forward manner.
The actions grouped under the heading of Rehabilitation of the Public
Transit System are addressed to the objective of modernization of the transit
system. The improvements are physical in nature and address the "needs" of
comfort, safety, and operational reliability and security.
The fourth action of improving and promoting mass transportation includes
a list of programs aimed at reducing travel time, improving coordination,
providing information, and promoting transit service improvments. Several of
the actions are in the form of studies whose conclusions are to be implemented.
The fifth action of improving transit support systems addresses improvements
in the form of park-and-ride facilities, changes in patterns of travel demand
in the form of staggered work hour programs and (again) operational improvements
to the transportation system in the form of express bus and car pool lanes.
-------
57
IV.B Evaluation of the Appropriateness of the Actions
IV.B.I Evaluation Methodology
The process of evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed actions to
meet the criteria presented in the submission is in three phases: 1) compare the
proposed actions with those of transit plans in other urban areas; 2) examine
the internal consistency of the submission; and 3) analyze possible local views
of the proposed actions. Although one would like to compare New York's
proposed actions as stated in the submission with those of other urban areas,
such a comparision is not possible because adequate data is not available.
One cannot make direct comparisons between a fiscally-constrained plan such as
the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission and capital programs of other areas which are
not typically constrained. One is limited therefore to a comparison of transit
programs which are funded, or for which a grant application has been submitted.
A comparison of the aggregate value of such projects is presented in Chapter V.
Thus, in this chapter, evaluation of the appropriateness of actions is limited
to points two and three, above.
IV.B.2 Problems of Consistency in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
Two kinds of consistency problems emerge in an examination of the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission. The first involves relationships among the components
of the proposal; the second deals with the relationship between this plan and
other planning efforts for transportation in New York.
Internal Consistency
Whenever a complex plan such as this is broken into component parts for
purposes of analysis or funding, there are bound to be spillover effects across
components. Usually this is not a serious problem. Benefits from one component
actually accrue to other categories but are not noted. For example, expenditures
in the comfort category for renovated subway cars will also improve the overall
-------
58
passenger environment. Similarly, station improvements will also contribute to
overall passenger comfort. In both cases, no unidentified costs are involved.
There are cases, however, where such spillover effects will cause
additional costs which are not noted. For example, expenditures for air
conditioning bus and subway vehicles will cause increased energy demands. The
plan for rehabilitating subway tracks and lines partly recognizes this by including
new third rail for parts of the network. The energy demands are not, however,
reflected in the operating budget allocation for fuel and power. The doubling
or tripling of the number of air conditioned vehicles and the rapid rise in the
unit cost of energy are not consistent with the proposed expenditures, which
show modest increases of 5.5 percent annually through 1983. Thus, capital
investment in comfort has serious implications for the operating budget and the
objective of fare stability. Other spillovers of costs from one category of
improvement to another will result from the plan, and must be taken into account
in order to accurately assess the financial implications of each proposed
improvement.
Consistency with Other Planning Efforts
A quantitative comparison of the capital program in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission with other similar programs will appear in Chapter V below. At
this point a more subjective issue will be discussed. An examination of the
transportation planning documents prepared by the various planning bodies active
in the New York area (The City Planning Department, the Tri-State Regional
Planning Commission, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and New York
State Department of Transportation) suggests that these agencies are among the
most innovative and forward-thinking in the nation. These bodies have excellent
staffs and do very creative work. Yet the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission,
prepared by the New York Department of Transportation and the New York Department
of Environmental Conservation, does not reflect this creativity. The plan seems
-------
59
commonplace. Since the New York area is the major metropolis in the nation,
and the area's transportation system is the largest in the nation, it does not
seem appropriate that the basic objective as presented in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission is simply to keep its seventy-five year old system in order. That
may be a function of the emphasis on "basic" transportation needs, but it
results in a plan that is lackluster when compared to those prepared by other
planning bodies.
IV.B.3 Local Views of Moynihan-Holtzman Submission Actions
The likely views of New York City residents toward actions proposed in
the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission are an important component in the evaluation
of the actions. Like Section II.C, on New Yorkers' basic transportation needs,
and Section III.C, on their priorities in evaluating performance standards,
this section is based on findings of survey research. Unlike the previous
sections, however, which concentrated on the objective conditions (Section II.C)
and subjective opinions (Section III.C) of people with respect to transportation
in general. this section will marshal! the available survey data on New York
City that might inform public views of measures like those contained in the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission in particular. The exhibits referred to can be
found in Appendix D.
This analysis of the likely view of New Yorkers toward the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission attempts to answer four general questions:
(1) Is there public support for increased government activity—particularly
federal activity—to encourage public transportation?
(2) What is the level of public support for stable transit fares?
(3) Would there be increased use of mass transit if fares were held
constant, or if various other improvements were implemented?
-------
60
(4) What priorities does the public assign in the economic trade-off
between fare level and transit improvements?
Public Support for Federal Activity in Transportation: The evidence for
such support is, by the usual standards of survey research, overwhelming.
CHOICE, the Regional Plan Association's exercise in participatory democracy in
1974, revealed that 89 percent of New York City residents taking part favored
government policy to encourage more reliance on public transportation in the
area. Significantly, this was not a general population survey (the source of
all other survey data heretofore presented in this report), but included only
people with an active interest in the question—the likely opinion leaders in
any community.
Many innocuous questions about apparently worthwhile measures (so-called
"motherhood" questions) do not draw much more than 89 percent support in
general population surveys. For this reason, the CHOICE experience constitutes
strong evidence of widespread public support for government activity to
encourage public transportation in the New York City area. This support is strong
among precisely those people—the actively interested and opinion leaders—upon
which success of the Moynihan-Holtzman proposal is likely to depend.
Public Support for Stable Transit Fares: The CHOICE data also provide
a glimpse of the structure of public opinion on fare stability. Four basic
positions neatly divide opinion on the question. From these onemight infer
that, in response to the Moynihan-Holtzman proposals, one-third of the public
wants fares to be held constant, another one-third wants fares pegged to the. rate
of inflation, and the remaining one-third is evenly divided on either side of these
two middle positions: one-sixth wants no fares (free public transportation) and
one-sixth wants a free-market fare (no government subsidy of public transportation),
In other words, moving from the so-called "liberal" to the "conservative" extreme
on the question, one-sixth wants free transportation, one-third wants a stable
-------
61
fare (reduced with inflationl, one-third wants a fare pegged to inflation
(stable in constant dollars), and one-sixth wants a free-market fare, likely to
be considerably higher without benefit of government subsidy.
This means that the Moynihan-Holtzman proposal for a constant fare would
have roughly 50 percent support against a more conservative measure (constant-
dollar stability) and majority (5/6) support against a more liberal measure
(free public transportation), at least among those actively interested in
transportation and likely to be opinion leaders on the subject. In short,
a constant fare comes about as close as any proposal could to representing the
happy median of public opinion, which seems to lie roughly equidistant between
absolute and constant-dollar stability.
Change in Transit Use with Fare Stability and Improvements: Only about
13 percent of the people who travel to Manhattan by automobile are virtually
certain that they would abandon their cars for mass transportation if their
criticisms of it were taken care of by government authorities, as shown by
Exhibit IV.B.3.3. This suggests that improvements in public transportation are
not likely, in themselves, to effect much change in automobile ridership.
Similarly, if public transit fares were cut in half, which is a
considerably more drastic change than that of the Moynihan-Holtzman proposal,
only 7 percent of those who travel to Manhattan by automobile said they were
virtually certain to abandon their cars for public transportation (Exhibit
IV.B.3.4). This suggests that the Moynihan-Holtzman program, in itself,
is not likely to reduce automobile ridership a great deal. Moreover, ridership
is more likely to be reduced because of transit improvements than through
stability or reduction of fares.
These findings are supported by other survey data. For example, one study
asked automobile drivers and nondrivers if they would make greater use of buses
-------
62
and subways if the fares were decreased (Exhibit IV.B.3.5). Only about one-
third using automobiles agreed that they might use public transit more often;
among non-drivers, the fraction was about one-half. In other words, the
Moynihan-Holtzman fare proposal is more likely to increase ridership of public
transit among those who already rely upon it for commuting than it is likely to
reduce automobile use in the New York City area.
Exhibit IV.B.3.6 presents similar data broken down by income and
geographical areas of the city. As the exhibit shows, lower income groups
would be more likely to increase their use of public transit if fares were
decreased by one-half (to 25 cents) than would higher income groups. Moreover,
those currently commuting in a van or car pool would be much more likely to
switch to public transit than would those currently commuting individually by
automobile.
There is public support for reduced transit fares if this would mean
higher personal taxes. As seen in Exhibit IV.B.3.7, 32 percent of the residents
of New York City favor reduction of transit fares by one-half, even if it meant
that they would have to pay an additional amount of tax (lower income groups
are more willing to pay additional taxes in exchange for lower transit fares
than are higher income groups). In other words, a significantly larger
percentage of people is willing to support a reduction of transit fares through
increased tax payments than through increased ridership of public transportation.
This may be because subsidization of transit fares is viewed as a form of
social welfare legislation, and supported—even at the cost of additional tax
dollars—by those who do not expect to make greater use of the transit system
(and hence are really subsidizing others). The pattern may also be due, in part,
to the desire to get other commuters off the road and onto mass transit--to
reduce highway congestion and to increase the ease of one's own commute (22
percent of automobile users, and 19 percent of nonusers, favor a fare decrease
at the expense of their own tax dollars).
-------
63
Fare Level Versus Transit Improvements: Residents of New York City do
not consider reduced fares as necessarily the most important priority for public
transportation as shown by Exhibit IV.B.3.3. The improvement with greatest
support, among those listed in this survey, is more frequent bus and subway
service during the rush hour (87 percent were dissatisfied with this, and 74
percent would be willing to pay an increased fare to correct the problem).
Scanning down the list of desired improvements, one might derive the following
rough rule of thumb: of the percentage of people complaining about a given
transit problems, the percentage of those willing to pay greater fares to
correct the problem will be roughly 10 to 12 percentage points less.
However, a sizeable percentages of people support increased fares in
exchange for each of a wide variety of public transit improvements. It seems
clear that the fare level itself is by no means the single most important
public priority for New York City mass transit.
In summary, the likely views of Mew York City residents toward the
major actions proposed in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission seem clear:
• There is considerable public support in the New York City area
for government activity in support of mass transit.
• There is support for either absolute or constant-dollar stability
of fares, but this is partially viewed as a social welfare measure
by those who do not themselves make much use of mass transit; hence
fare stability is not likely to greatly reduce automobile use.
• Transit usage is not particularly sensitive to fare level, and may
be only slightly more sensitive to transit improvements; hence
the improvements listed in the submission are not likely to greatly
increase ridership of mass transportation.
• Various improvements in public transportation, even at the expense of
higher fares, are given higher priorities by the public than is fare
stability.
-------
64
V. FUNDING AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF IMPLEMENTATION
V.A. Proposed Funding Levels
Statement of Funding Levels
The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission specifies five categories of basic
transportation needs and then proposes expenditures for each. These proposed
funding levels are shown in the first two columns of Table V.A.I. . The plan
calls for $271 million in government assistance for fare stability in the
operating budget. Proposed capital expenditures are:
a) $204 million for operational safety and reliability;
b) $214 million for comfort; and
c) $51 million for environment and security.
Proposed capital expenditures total $379 million.
Note that the plan calls for no capital expenditures in the service
availability and convenience category. In fact, the plan suggests route and
scheduling modifications, but this seems to be costless—at least in terms of
capital needs. The operating costs of these changes are not specified. Also,
the station improvements included under the Comfort and Security category in-
clude such things as elevators which increase system availability, particularly
to the elderly and handicapped.
Adequacy of Funding Levels for Each Basic Transportation Need
Assessing the adequacy of the funding levels proposed in the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission is difficult on several counts. First, the standards in
Note that proposed expenditures for new or rehabilitated vehicles are
included in the Comfort category rather than the Operational Safety and
Reliability.
-------
65
judge whether they will be met. Second, there is no project by project
breakdown so it is impossible to determine whether proposed funding will
allow the implementation of projects included. Finally, there is inadequate
information for determining whether the projects, if implemented, will
actually change the characteristics of the system. For instance, will the
investments in the Operational Safety and Reliability category actually change
the on-time experience of the subway system? That question cannot be answered
on the basis of available data.
Given the dearth of information, the only way to attempt an evaluation
of proposed funding levels is to compare them with capital programs for
transportation prepared by other planning bodies in the region. Table V.A.I
includes proposed capital investments from a variety of sources. The first
is the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which was also included in the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission. The second is "A New Direction in Transit,"
prepared by the New York City Planning department. This is followed by
capital proposals included in the 1980 New York City Executive Budget. Fourth
is the proposal of expenditures included in the MTA's application to the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) which consists of three parts: a) the
basic UMTA application; b) the Accelerated Transit Program (ATP); and c) the
proposal for the Joint Development Program (JDP). Finally, capital expenditures
proposed in "Capital Needs and Priorities for the City of New York" prepared
by the New York City Planning Commission are included.
A difficulty underlying this comparison must be stated at the outset.
Since all of these capital programs were prepared by New York agencies, they
are not strictly independent of each other. Indeed, the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission was prepared by the same agency which prepared the SIP- Also,
the UMTA applications were prepared to be consistent with the Moynihan-Holtzman
-------
TABLE K.A.I
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 1980 EXPENDITURES TO MEET
BASIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS - SEVERAL SOURCES
(In $ millions of current year dollars)
1. Fare Stability
2. Operational Safety
and Reliability
3. Comfort (crowding.
air conditioning,
noise
4. Environment and
Security
5. Service Availability
and Convenience
TOTAL
M-H Submission
Table 1
Operating
Expenditures
Government
Acc i c t1 AnfA
A%> 1 a vtlfHC
721 c
M-H Submission
Table III-l
Capital
Expenditures
283
- 79 buses"
~2oT
S.I. P. from
Table III-l
Government
Ac c 1 efr AH/* A
n«* i aLainc
837
287
- 83 buses'
~20T
721c
45 .
+ 79 buses"
51
399
A New Direction in
Transit, A-C Levels
D.C.P.
51
* 83 buses"
76
N.A.
414
229.7
205.6e
111.5
Para Transit
0.05
546.85
1980 Executive
Budget. N.Y.C.
Capital Budget
City Payments
from Expense
Budget
287.5
340.6
201.2'
147.253
146.99
836.043"
1980 UNTA
Applications
by MTAa
Includes the sum of 1980 Expenditures in the second year basic application (UMTA) plus expenditures in the
Accelerated Transit Program (ATP), plus expenditures In the New Initiative Joint Development Program (JDP).
Expenditures for new buses could go either in Operational Safety and Reliability or in Comfort. To
facilitate comparisons, I have chosen the latter.
As Indicated in the detailed review of the proposed operating budgets, there may be deficits ranging as high
as $250 million for the NYCTA and $80 million for commuter rail activities in addition to government assistance.
Does not Include expenditures on new transit cars, but does include $20 million for air conditioning retrofit.
Includes $185.6 million for new and rehabilitated transit cars.
Includes $47.4 million In transit car modernization.
Includes $36.2 million for air conditioning transit cars.
Does not include the $207.5 million from the expense budget.
Completion of Queens expansion work already under way.
UMTA 136.1
ATP 62.0
T9STT
UMTA 83.2
ATP 41.0
12O9
UMTA 25.0
ATP 55.0
JDP 40.0
T2O
442.3
Capital Needs
and Priorities
C.P.C.
272.4
242.8
130.4
111.5
759.1
1
en
ot
-------
67
Submission. In spite of this difficulty, the comparisons are still useful.
As is clear from Table V.A.I., the funding levels proposed for meeting basic
transportation needs are the lowest in all categories. A more detailed
examination of each category follows.
Fare Stability: Fare Stability is actually a function of the operating
budget rather than of capital expenditures. This section examines some
specific points concerning the impact of fare stability and other policies
on transit operating budgets. Appendix A presents an Item-by-item examination
of the operating budget presented in Tables V-3 and V-4 of the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission (for NYCTA and Computer Rail Operations, respectively). Note that
these operating budgets are for implementing the S.I.P- No operating budgets
explicitly for the Basic Transportation Needs Program are provided in the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission.
Table 1 of the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission indicates average annual
levels of government assistance to satisfy basic transportation needs of $721
million. Assistance of $837 million is needed to satisfy needs outlined in
the SIP. The only difference between basic needs relative to fare stability
and fare stability as per the SIP, is that the latter retains the fifty
cent fare through 1981 while the former allows fares to keep pace with the
cost of living. This suggests that retention of the fifty cent fare costs
about $100 million per year.
Additional points rely on the analysis in Appendix A. It must be noted
here that the operating budget figures are presented through 1983, always in
current dollars. No adjustments are made for inflation. On the revenue side,
the forecasts for the NYCTA seem unduly optimistic, particularly estimates
of farebox revenue and government assistance. Making some modest assumptions
about ridership and about the various forms of government assistance produces
-------
68
forecasts $87 million below those in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission. At
the same time, revenue forecasts for commuter rail activities seem somewhat
conservative.
In addition to the possible overstatement of revenue, it appears as if
expenditures are underestimated. Table V.A.2, drawn from Appendix A, in-
dicates the range of understatement in expenditures in 1:983 for inflation
rates of 8 percent and 12 percent. The total shortfall runs from $71
million to $234 million, clearly substantial amounts. When these figures are
combined with the possible $87 million overestimate in revenues, it appears
that the operating deficit may be understated by $158 million to $371 million,
depending on the rate of inflation.
This review suggests that the objective of fare stability, the objective
apparently seen as the most important aspect of basic transportation needs,
cannot be met without substantial additional assistance funds. Without these
funds, fare stability is in serious jeopardy.
Operational Safety and Reliability: Expenditures in this category include
such things as right-of-way rehabilitation, renovation of signal and communi-
cation systems, upgrading power systems, and upgrading of maintenance and ser-
vice facilities. Some of this work is necessary to serve air conditioned sub-
way cars.
Table V.A.3 shows a breakdown of expenditures in this category for various
capital programs. The figures, except for the executive capital budget and the
UMTA applications, are average annual expenditures throughout the planning
period. Comparing the bottom line figures is misleading because the Moynihan-
Holtzman figures and the S.I.P. figures include $47 million for commuter rail
activities while others include no similar allocation.
It is difficult to examine the breakdown of expenditures in this category
-------
69
TABLE V.A.2
UNDERSTATEMENT IN FORECASTS OF 1983
OPERATING EXPENDITURES FOR NYCTA
(in $ millions)
Wages/Salaries
and Fringes
Fuel and Power
Other
TOTAL
8% Inflation
37
11
48
12% Inflation
173
30
203
UNDERSTATEMENT IN FORECASTS OF
OPERATING EXPENDITURES FOR
COMMUTER RAIL ACTIVITIES, 1983
(in $ millions)
Wages/Salaries
and Fringes
Fuel, Power
and Utilities
Other
TOTAL
8% Inflation
19
0
4
23
12% Inflation
66
6
9
81
TOTAL UNDERSTATEMENT IN FORECASTED
OPERATING REVENUES, 1983
(in $ millions)
TOTAL
71
294
-------
70
TABLE V.A.3
:D BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
'ERATIONAL SAFETY AND RELIABILITY
(in $ millions)
M-H
__a
a
,— a
__a
i.O
__a
a
48.03
SIP
a
a
a
a
9.0
a
a
148. Oa
DCP
73.0
50.5
32.0
36.0
4.2
30.0
4.0
-__
Exec.
Budget
190.5
57.4
42.4
50.2
—
___
_—
UMTA
61.0
43.0
18.0
41.5
—
16.4
6.5
11.7
CPC
86.3
59.6
37.8
42.5
6.1
35.4
4.7
Right-of-Way
Rehabilitation
Signals and
Communications
Power Equipment
Shops and Yards
S.I.R.T
(including Ferry) 9.0
Surface Maintenance
and Facilities
Service Vehicles
Other
TOTAL 204b 204b 229.7 340.6 198.1 272.4
a. Impossible to disaggregate. Includes $148 million for (TA) Other.
b. Includes $47 million for Commuter Rail System.
-------
71
because the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission and the Si I.P. lump most expenditures
into an "other" subcategory. However, with the exception of the proposed
expenditures for right-of-way rehabilitation in the executive capital budget,
there is a remarkable degree of consistency among the other four sets of
proposed expenditures. If one takes the average of the entries in each row
of the table in the last four columns, and imputes that value as the cost of
basic needs in each category, it is possible to impute total costs. Note
that these are essential systems for which it is difficult to conceive a
difference between basic needs and any other level. At any rate, the im-
puted cost of these improvements is slightly over $228 million, a figure
substantially greater than that in both the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission and
the SIP. This suggests that $148 million is a low level of funding for
capital investment needs in that category of Operational Safety and Reliability.
Comfort; Expenditures in this category are primarily aimed at air condi-
tioning transit vehicles (both buses and subway cars). Substantially smaller
amounts of money are allocated to abatement of noise and crowding. Note that
comfort in stations is included in the category "Environment and Security"
below. Note also that improved signal systems may increase capacity and reduce
crowding, and that right-of-way rehabilitation will reduce noise.
Table V.A.4 shows the breakdown of proposed expenditures for the various
capital programs. As could be expected, the basic needs proposal is consistent
with the SIP and both are reflected in the UMTA applications. Also, with
the exception of the executive capital budget, there is remarkable uniformity
in the necessary expenditures for new (air conditioned) buses.
The executive budget figure for right-of-way rehabilitation was omitted
as being unrealistic.
-------
72
TABLE V.A.4
DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF PLANNED EXPENDITURES
ON COMFORT
(in $ raillions)
Exec.
M-H S.I.P. D.C.P. Budget UMTA C.P.C.
Air Condition
Subway Cars 20.0 20.0 18.0 49.4 36.2 —a
Air Condition
Buses — — 2.0 — — —a
New Subway
Cars ' — — 119.0 — — 161.7s
New Buses 79.0 83.0 66.6 153.2 88.0 81.la
Platform
Lengthening 18.0 18.0 — 0.6 — —
Noise Control 7.0 13.0 — — — — -
TOTAL 124.0 134.0 205.6 201.2 124.2 242.8
a. Includes both purchase and rehabilitation.
-------
73
The major discrepancy in this set of proposed expenditures revolves
around the purchase or rehabilitation of subway cars. The executive budget
proposes $47.4 million for rehabilitation. The City Planning Commission
proposes $161.7 million for new cars and the Department of City Planning
proposes a total of $136 million for new and renovated cars. The Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission and the SIP propose $20 million for retrofitting (air
conditioning) subway cars and state that they are studying options for
expanding the subway car fleet and replacing cars as they retire. No funding
source for this work is explicitly included. Thus, it is clear that the
funding level proposed for comfort by the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission (which
1s reflected in the UMTA application) is inadequate to satisfy basic trans-
portation needs.
Environment and Security: Expenditures in this category (see Table V.A.5)
deal primarily with station improvements which include appearance, convenience,
access for the elderly and handicapped, security, and comfort (comfort in
vehicles 1s in the previous section). It is, however, impossible to disag-
gregate the expenditures according to these components. In recent months, an
increase in subway crime has led to an expansion of police protection in the
subway. While such additional protection is likely to be a continuing baiic
need, there is no discussion in the Submission of the expected impact of expanded
police protection on operating expenses.
Expenditures for station improvements in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
are substantially below those in other capital programs. Indeed, the fact that
the UMTA proposals include an amount consistent with the SIP in the basic
and accelerated transit program proposals alone, and have added $40 million
in the Joint Development Program, suggests that the SIP proposal may be a
better measure of basic needs than the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission.
-------
74
TABLE V.A.5
DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
ON ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY
(in $ millions)
Exec.
M-H S.I.P. D.C.P. Budget UMTA C.P.C.
Station Improvements 49.Oa 74.Oa 102.5 147.3 120.0 121.0
Station Improvements
(SIRT) 1.0 1.0 8.0 — — 9.4
Staten Island
Ferry' 1.0 1.0 1.0
TOTAL 51.0 76.0 111.5 147.3 120.0 130.4
a. Includes $5 million for Commuter Rail Activities.
-------
75
The JDP brings the total up to a level necessary to satisfy priorities
A through C of the DCP proposal.
Service Availability and Convenience: Since the basic emphasis of the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission, the SIP, and the UMTA proposal is on the up-
grading of the existing system, there is no mention of funding for expanded
service. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission mentions future studies of scheduling
and/or bus route modifications to improve service availability, but this will
presumably not require capital funds. The DCP proposal calls for a small
amount to be spent on city-wide paratransit, primarily to aid the elderly
and handicapped. The City's Executive Capital Budget includes a substantial
expenditure for extension of transit lines (primarily the Second Avenue line)
as part of its new routes program. This seems inconsistent with basic needs,
but may well be desirable. It should also be noted that the CPC program
includes $115.5 million in new routes for the Queens extension, work which
is currently in progress. It appears as if the existing capital plant (after
rehabilitation) is sufficient to satisfy basic needs regarding service avail-
ability and convenience. The only possible exception is service to the elderly
and handicapped, which may be provided by new buses built to new federal
specifications, and by the addition of elevators in the station improvement
proposals.
In summary, a clear pattern seems evident. The Moynihan-Holtzman Sub-
mission seems to understate the levels of investment needed to satisfy basic
transportation needs. In every category the proposed annual expenditures seem
low. While this may suggest that the SIP goes beyond basic transportation
needs, it appears that even the levels of funding proposed in the SIP are
actually inadequate. One is left to conclude that the MTA, through its UMTA
capital funding application is attempting to satisfy basic needs, but that the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission seriously understates the level of expenditures
necessary.
-------
76
It should be noted that the level of expenditures proposed in the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission represents a virtual 100 percent increase over
past funding levels, even when viewed on a per capita or per revenue passenger
basis. This may suggest that the system has been seriously underfunded in
the past, a factor contributing to the high levels needed now.
V.B. Comparative Budgets and Fare Analysis
This section provides a comparison of fare, operating budget, and
subsidy, and capital expenditures in New York City, against other metropolitan
areas within and outside of New York State.
Fare Analysis
The operating budget is closely linked with the fare stability question.
The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission considers fare stability an essential com-
ponent of basic transportation needs. A consideration of aspects of fare
policy among basic transportation needs is certainly in order. The question
then is whether fare stability is the proper criterion of basic needs. The
state seems to choose that definition and has taken a policy position that
fare stability is the need on which financial commitment will be focused.
This would necessarily have serious impact on the amount of money available
for other operating expenditures or capital improvement projects. For that
reason alone, fare as policy should be the subject of further scrutiny. There
are, however, two additional considerations discussed in previous chapters
which emphasize the need for analysis of fare policy. The first point is
that ridership is not very closely tied or sensitive to changes in fare.
There is certainly a consensus regarding that conclusion and it has been
echoed by the public as well as the professionals in the transportation field.
The second consideration, also alluded to before, is that of equity. The
-------
77
policy could have been that fare should be equitable among modes, income groups,
or cities in the New York State. Faced with the question of equity vis-a-vis
stability, the State has selected the position of fare stability. Further
examination of that position, however, using several measures of equity, should
enable us to determine whether the fare would remain stable. If it does not,
a change in fare will directly impact the amount of money or funds available
for capital expenditures.
Tables V.B.I through V.B.4 summarize an analysis conducted by the Planning
Research Unit of the New York State Department of Transportation on Equity in
New York State Transit Fares (Weiss, et. al., 1975). Table V.B.I shows that
transit riders in the ten different communities included in this analysis bear
differing portions of the cost of their respective systems. The first column
shows the fraction (percent) of the operating cost made up by the fare box.
The percentage ranges from a low of 44.1% to a high of 73.4%, both of which
occur in the New York MTA system. The second and third columns are the base
and average fare paid by each rider. The last column shows the results of
equalizing the fare, i.e., changing fares in some places so that transit riders
bear an equal share of their respective system operating costs. Equalizing
on the average operating ratio of 56.9%, New York City bus fares would be lower
while commuter rail fares would be higher than at the present time. Thus,
"A policy of equal share cost paid for by riders would lead to lower fares on
New York City transit systems relative to commuter rail."
Table V.B.2 summarizes the average fare per travel mile for ten different
operators in New York State. In considering the distance traveled, the
Equity in New York Transit Fare, p. 4
-------
TABLE V.B.I
FARE EQUITY ANALYSIS
System
MTA - Bus
- Subway
- Computer Rail
NYC Private
Nassau County
Westchester County
NFTA (Buffalo)
RGRTA (Rochester)
CDTA (Albany-Sch'dy-Troy)
CNYRTA (Syracuse)
Utlca TA
Broome Co.
Average Ratio
TRANSIT SYSTEM REVENUES
SPY 1977
% Cost met by
Fares
73.4
54.0
44.1
74.6
44.2
63.8
65.8
55.6
64.7
56.5
49.1
66.7
56.9
AS A PERCENT OF
Present Fares
Base Av
50*
50«
$1.76 $1.
45***
45*
384"
40*
40*
404
354
354
404
COSTS
erage
424
464
89
424
454
384
434
414
474
364
244
394
Equalized Fare:
Equalized to *
Average Ratio
334
484
$2.44
324
584
344
374
424
414
364
284
334
CO
* Adjusted to average ratio (56.9%), average fare used; no shrinkage
** Average of systems
-------
TABLE V.B.2
FARE EQUITY ANALYSIS
System
MTA - Bus
- Subway
- Commuter Rail
NYC Private
Nassau County
Uestchester County
NFTA (Buffalo)
RGRTA (Rochester)
CDTA (Albany-Sen 'dy- Troy)
CNYRTA (Syracuse)
Utlca TA
Broome Co.
Average Ratio
AVER/
Average Tr1|
Length (M)
2.0
7.2
26.0
--
3.5
2.5
3.2
3.5
2.5
3.5
3.2
3.0*
WE PRICE PER MILE TRAVELED
> Present Fares Fare
Base
50tf
50^
$1.76
45*
45*
38*
40*
40*
40*
35*
35*
40*
Average
42
46
$1.89
42*
45*
38*
43*
41*
47*
36*
24*
39*
Base
25.0
6.9
6.8
12.9
12.9
15.2
12.5
11.4
16.0
10.0
10.9
13.3
Per Mile
Average
21.0
6.4
7.3
12.0
12.9
15.2
13.4
11.7
18.8
10.3
7.5
13.0
11.7
Equalized Fa
to Average R
23*
84*
$3.03
41*
41*
29*
36*
41*
33*
41*
37*
35*
Approximated
-------
8Q
inequities of the flat fare system become apparent. Although fares throughout
the state appear to be the same, the cost per mile to the rider varies from
a low of 6.4
-------
TABLE V.B.3
FARE EQUITY ANALYSIS
PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON PUBLIC TRANSIT COMMUTING
% Income
1970 Income Present Fare Spent on Commuting**41
System
MTA - Bus
- Subway
- Commuter Rail
NYC Private
Nassau County
Uestchester County
NFTA (Buffalo)
RGRTA (Rochester)
CDTA (Albany-Sch'dy-Troy)
CNYRTA (Syracuse)
Blnghamton
IJTA (Utlca-Rome)
Average Ratio
All
Workers
$
7,329
7,329
17,362*
7,329
-
-
6,996
7,644
7,020
6.666
6,420
Uorkers
Using Public Tr.
$
6,212
6,920
17,018
6.212
-
-
4.202
4.638
4,552
3.958
3,843
3.858
% Diff.
-15.2
- 5.6
- 2.0
-15.2
-
-
-39.9
-38.6
-35.2
-42.6
-42.3
-39.9
Base
504
50*
$1.76
4ST
45T
38}*
40*
40*
40*
35*
40*
32*
Average
42*
46*
$1.89
**
42*
45**
38P
43*
41*
47*
36*
39*
-
Base
4.0
3.6
5.2
3.6
-
-
4.8
4.3
4.4
4.4
5.2
4.1
Average
3.4
3.3
5.6
3.4
-
-
5.1
4.4
5.2
4.5
5.1
-
4.5
Equalized
Fares
To Average Ratio
55*
63*
$1.53
56*
-
-
38*
42*
41*
36*
35*
35*
* Metro area workers living outside central city, working Inside central city CBD
** Average of systems
*** % Income = (Fare) (2) (250 days/yr/mean Income)
oo
-------
TABLE V.B.4
FARE EQUITY ANALYSIS
SUMMARY - EQUITY OF TRANSIT FARES
Base Data Present
Base
% Cost from % Income Spent Price per Fare
System Fares on Commuting Mile Traveled*
MTA - Bus 73.4 4.0 25.0 50*
- Subway 54.0 3.6 6.9 50*
- Commuter Rail 44.1 5.2 6.8 $1.76
NYC Private 74.8
Nassau County 44.2
Westchester County 63.8
NFTA (Buffalo) 65.8 4.8
RGRTA (Rochester) 55.6 4.3
CDTA (Albany-Sen1 dy-Troy) 64.7 4.4
CNYKTA (Syracuse) 56.5 4.4
Blnghamton 66.7 5.2
12.9 454
12.9 45*
15.2 38*
12.5 40*
11.4 40*
16.0 40*
10.0 35*
13.3 40*
Equity Fares Equalized on the Basis of:
Cost per Ride Cost per Mile % of Income
for commuting
Fare Chg. Fare Chq. Fare Chq.
33* -17* 23* -27* 55* + 5*
48* - 2* 84* +34* 63* +13*
$2.44 +68* $3.03 +$1.27 $1.27 -23*
32* -13* 41* - 4* 45* 0*
58* +13* 41* - 4* -
34* - 4* 29* - 9* -
37* - 3* 36* - 4* 38* - 2*
42* + 2* 41* + 1* 42* + 2*
41* + 1* 33* - 7* 41* + 1*
36* + 1* 41* + 6* 36* + 1*
- 35* - 5*
UTA (Utlca)
oo
ro
49.1
4.1
10.9
35*
28*
- 7*
27*
+ 2* 35*
0*
-------
33
Other measures provide different perspectives and may result in solutions
other than stabilizing the fare.
Operating Budget and Subsidy
Table V.B.5 shows a comparison of operating subsidy to New York City and
the three other metropolitan areas with the most extensive transit systems in
the country—Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago. For purposes of comparison, the
subsidies have been normalized over three different variables: per revenue
passenger, per vehicle mile, and per capita. Furthermore, subsidies have been
broken down into their sources: Federal, State and local. This breakdown,
however, is sometimes misleading because Federal funds occasionally are chan-
neled into other agencies which, in turn, allocate them along with other funds
to the operators. The operator (Chicago Transit Authority), however, may report
these funds as local subsidy. In either case, normalized total subsidy, regard-
less of its source, is most appropriate for comparison.
Regardless of the normalizing procedure, New York City's operating subsidy
does not appear to be out of line with those provided for other major cities.
Subsidy per revenue passenger averaged over recent years (75-76 or 75-78) is
slightly lower than that of Philadelphia, or Chicago—a reflection of the high
ridership in New York City. The per vehicle mile subsidy is between those of
Chicago and Philadelphia, but considerably lower than Boston's. The per capita
subsidy in New York is comparable only to Boston's but considerably higher than
in Philadelphia and Chicago. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission proposed 1980
subsidy of New York City is noteworthy. Compared with subsidy of recent years,
it is expected to increase by almost one hundred percent. The M-H Submission
does not explain the reason for the increase, nor does it explain fully the
sources of funds required to cover it. There are many unsubstantiated assump-
tions in the M-H Submission's operating assistance projections. The Section 5
-------
TABLE V.B.5
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE OPERATING SUBSIDIES
BOSTON
75-76
$ per Revenue Passenger
Fed. State Local Total
$ per Vehicle Mile $ per Capita
Fed. State Local Total Fed. State Local Total
0.33 0.48 2.02 3.63 5.09 7.50 31.79 56.84
PHILADELPHIA
75-79
0.08 0.17 0.10 0.37 0.33 0.63 0.35 1.32 8.97 17.45 9.75 36.34
CD
CHICAGO
75-76
0.00 0.055 0.267 0.322 0.00 0.149 0.719 0.869 0.00 5.125 24.7 29.825
NEW YORK 75-76
75-78
0.029 0.056
0.208 0.293
0.25
0.112 0.218 0.812 1.142
1.38
5.475 10.615 39.41 55.51
55.5
NEW YORK '80
0.54
3.04
100.6
-------
85
operating assistance authorizations go only through 1982. The projections of
these funds through 1982 include about the same total amount of dollars as New
York City's share of the authorizations. Note that authorizations are not ap-
propriations. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission shows a shift of funds from
1979 into the later years and then projects the trend from 1980 to 1982 into
1983 after the shift has been made. This shows quite a different trend than
straight authorizations or appropriations. Implicit is the assumption that
Federal Operating Assistance will continue, which is probably a reasonable
assumption. However, the trend used to project available funds probably results
in an over-estimate of 1983 Section 5 Operating Assistance.
Capital Expenditures
Figure V.B.I and Table V.B.6 show approved transit capital grants to eight
major urban areas. The left hand side bar chart shows the cumulative approved
capital grants while the right hand chart shows the corresponding figures per
capita. Excluding Washington D.C., which received special Congressional appro-
priations, the New York area received the highest amount of cumulative capital
grants. However, when compared on the per capita basis, New York's advantage is
reduced considerably but remains higher than that of either Chicago or Philadelphia
Table V.B.7 compares the capital expenditures of recent years. As was done
with the operating subsidy, capital expenditures were normalized on the basis of
revenue passenger vehicle miles per capita. Again, New York's expenditures do
not differ significantly from those of the three other cities with major transit
systems. However, regardless of how expenditures were normalized, New York ex-
ceeds both Philadelphia and Chicago. Boston, however, exceeds New York expendi-
tures on the per vehicle mile. The M-H Submission proposed 1980 expenditures are
again noteworthy. On all three bases (revenue passenger, vehicle miles, and
-------
TABLE V.B.6
CUMULATIVE APPROVED CAPITAL CHANTS
• HIGHEST RECIPIENTS
AS Or SEPTEHRER 10, 1*7}
(federal Share Only)
Urban! ted Arai Section }
Wellington | 111, 266,902
Haw York-Hex Jeraey- 1,1*4,791,014
Connecticut
Roaton 401,662,449
Chicago 7I4,*11,9I7
Atlanta 744,401,464
San rranclaco-Oaklanil }11, 124,021
Raltlaioie 191,048,101
Phlladaluhla 104,271,761
Section } Inleratate Urban Syaleiu)
'Capital ' Tjanafef A Other
,717,10,.},* ,;,,100,400,000<
»1.801.0iO
171.784.411
f 100,000 - 6.171,81*
.
2,064, aaa - 1,714.610
111.)}}
6i.ia4.iaa
Population
(fro* t»4.
GRAND TOTAL Reg, I/I 1/7IJ
" (2,048,776,418 2,481,489
1.888,196,104 16,206,841
718.446.891 1,611,171
721.484,716 6.714.178
744.401.464 1,171,77*
117.901.160 1.987.810
191.169,61} 1.179.781
166 418.14* 4. oil .Oik
Grant
per
Capita
|826
116
186
107
61}
187
249
91
TOTAL - I7.47S.117.IS7
'1'
I7.ai6,»ia
(I) Canfratalunal Grant lor Uatlilii|ton Hclro
(2t Includaa JJi HI 11 Ion l«.r Canter Clly Cuuuul«r Connactlun
(1) Total lapreiautl 7»t a( All rundlng ComltlMul*
-------
FIGURE V.B.I
(Source: UMTA)
TRANSIT CAPITAL GRANTS TO URBAN AREAS
to
14
J"
o 10
-
1
i
•i*.
•
o
t
CUMULATIVE APPROVED CAPITAL 6RAI
-I Ma|«i Recipients M •( Stpiimbtr 30. 1
• i*
I
(•Illlvn. ol DolUr.l
.„ •»•
o
u
u
4
4
a
0 * "
a
• S
I I I
ipoo
MO
•00
too
4«°°
-.00
4
O
owo
MO
too
100
FEDERAL 6RANT DOLLARS PER CAPITA
-
_
-
-
-
-1
••a.
|
MaJM Rtcipiwlt •• •! Stptemhw 31. 1977-
ill
• >•*
(
• 10?.
I
I
•I..
8
1 8 j "'
H i ;
00
-------
TABLE V.B.7
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
$ per Revenue Passenger $ per Vehicle Mile $ per Capita
Fed. State Local Total Fed. State Local Total Fed. State Local Total
BOSTON 1.37 0.34 1.71 21.87 5.47 27.34
75-76
PHILADELPHIA .06 .011 .008 .08 .22 .04 .03 .28 6.51 1.10 .82 8.49
75-79
CHICAGO 0.110 0.034 0.000 0.144 0.296 0.091 0.00 0.387 10.163 3.113 0.00 13.3
75-76
NEU YORK 75-76 0.171 0.041 0.079 0.224 0.668 0.158 0.049 0.874 32.43 7.69 2.37 42.53
75-78 0.16 0.89 30.4
NEU YORK '80 0.30 1.60 52.9
CO
CO
-------
89
per capita), the proposed expenditures rate of recent years in New York City
(1975-1978) by almost one hundred percent.
V.C. Security of Proposed Funding Sources
After reviewing the way in which the expenditures proposed for New York
compare with those in other metropolitan areas, the final step in the analysis
is to examine the security of the sources for the proposed funding program.
While sources for proposed funding levels will be examined here, it should be
remembered that Section V.A. indicated that the proposed funding levels seemed
inadequate to meet basic transportation needs.
government Operating Assistance Funds
Funding for government operating assistance, which directly impinges on
the fare stability objective, is composed of Federal, State and local contri-
butions. With one exception, the State and local contributions seem quite
secure; the exception is the transfer from the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel
Authority (TBTAV- As indicated in Appendix A, the TBTA is required to transfer
surplus revenues to the MTA. The rate of growth of this revenue transfer seems
reasonable, but no mention is made of the possibility of the TBTA undertaking
new ventures (such as the Convention Center) which would place a competing demand
on surplus revenues. Thus, there is no guarantee that surplus TBTA revenues
will continue to be available.
The least secure element in the proposed funding for government operating
assistance is the Federal contribution which comes from Section 5 of UMTA. As
indicated in Appendix A, the methods used to forecast Section 5 funds include
some questionable assumptions, and the trend used for forecasting is based on
a shift of funds from 1979 to later years. This results in overly optimistic
forecasts of Section 5 funds.
-------
90
In summary it seems unlikely that the level of funding proposed for government
operating assistance will materialize. This conclusion is independent of the
parallel finding that the need for operating assistance is understated. This
suggests that fare stability may have to be reconsidered as a high priority basic
transportation need, particularly in light of the findings on public opinion dis-
cussed in section IV.B. 4. above.
Capital Assistance Funds
In the following discussion it should be recalled that Section V.A. above
indicated that the levels of capital investment proposed in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission to meet basic needs (and to some extent to satisfy the SIP) were
inadequate. Nonetheless, that plan is being followed quite consistently in the
UMTA applications. Since UMTA (along with the required local match) is the
primary source of funds for capital investment, it is appropriate to review the
security of these funding estimates.
Capital fund requests to UMTA from the MTA consist of three components:
the basic UMTA application, the accelerated transit program, and the joint
development program. The first of these, the basic UMTA application, is based
on the premise that the MTA will continue to get the share of UMTA allocations
it £as received in the past. This is a reasonable assumption and this component
of capital funding is quite secure.
The second component, the accelerated transit program (ATP), is a plan
worked out by the governor of New York and the Mayor of New York City. The plan
calls for a speed-up in capital investment in transportation and is based on the
argument that the MTA should get a substantially larger portion of UMTA alloca-
tions than it has in the past. If both the basic program and the ATP are fully
funded by UMTA, the funding level will fall between that proposed for basic needs
and that proposed in the SIP. The accelerated transit program, however, is not
formally recognized by UMTA. It seems questionable to build a capital plan on the
-------
91
assumption that such a program will be fully funded.
The final component of UMTA fundings is the joint development program
(JDP) which draws from a separate UMTA appropriation. While there is a
reasonable chance that this application will be approved, the funds will be
designated explicitly for station improvements other than those indicated as
necessary to satisfy basic transportation needs.
It can only be concluded that the sources of capital funds included in
the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission cannot be considered secure until and unless
there is a guarantee of full funding of the accelerated transit program by UMTA.
Even if this occurs, the funding levels appear inadequate to truly satisfy
basic transportation needs.
The Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment clearly specifies that a transportation
plan consider all possible funding sources. The submission prepared by New
York State relies on maintained levels of state and local funding and increased
UMTA funding. Capital funds from possible "Interstate Trade-in" were discussed
and dismissed as unnecessary. Capital bond issues were not explicitly mentioned
although one is currently pending. No mention was made of alternative funding
sources such as tax schemes which could be used for mass transit. It would
appear that the Submission has not fully drawn on all available funding sources
and does not achieve the goal of being able to satisfy basic transportation
needs.
-------
91
assumption that such a program will be fully funded.
The final component of UMTA fundings is the joint development program
(JDP) which draws from a separate UMTA appropriation. While there is a
reasonable chance that this application will be approved, the funds will be
designated explicitly for station improvements other than those'indicated as
necessary to satisfy basic transportation needs.
'' It can only be concluded that the sources of capital funds included in
the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission cannot be considered secure until and unless
there is a guarantee of full funding of the accelerated transit program by UMTA.
Even if this occurs, the funding levels appear inadequate to truly satisfy
basic transportation needs.
The Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment clearly specifies that a transportation
plan consider all possible funding sources. The submission prepared by New
York State relies on maintained levels of state and local funding and increased
UMTA funding. Capital funds from possible "Interstate Trade-in" were discussed
and dismissed as unnecessary. Capital bond issues were not explicitly mentioned
although one is currently pending. No mention was made of alternative funding
sources such as tax schemes which could be used for mass transit. It would
appear that the Submission has not fully drawn on all available funding sources
and does not achieve the goal of being able to satisfy basic transportation
needs.
-------
92
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment of the 1977 Clean Air Act charges the
State of New York with the responsibility to develop and implement a transit
improvement program to meet the "basic transportation needs" of the New York
City Metropolitan area. The objective of this improvement program, as
interpreted by the U.S. EPA, is to make public transportation a viable
alternative to use of the private automobile for all potential users (Costle,
1978).
This study evaluates the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission from various
viewpoints - philosophical, technical, and sociological. The major conclusions
of this study are given below:
t "Basic transportation needs" refer to the mobility of people, and
the movement of vehicles; however, all of the proposed performance
measures (with the exception of fare stability) are system-oriented
rather than user-oriented (Section III.B).
• There is no single feeling of need, nor dissatisfaction with current
service, common to all demographic, economic and social groups but
rather a cacophony of competing dissatisfactions; for this reason,
the word "need" is inappropriately objective and artificial in this
context. New York City does not have transportation "needs" so much
as it has competing interests in particular changes and improvements
in public transportation; these interests are possible trade-offs for
further action, which only the political process can determine (Section
II.C).
-------
93
• Fare structures and costs are important—but not overwhelming-
priorities among New York City transit users; factors like safety,
cleanliness, guaranteed seats, and rapid, on-time arrival appear to be
among the priorities users might consider before the stability of
transit fares. Indeed, the public seems willing to accept higher
fares to fund high-priority improvements (Sections III.C and IV.B).
• Transit usage is not particularly sensitive to fare level and may be
only slightly more sensitive to transit improvements; hence Moynihan-
Holtzman is not likely to increase greatly ridership of mass
transportation (Section IV.B.4).
• There is support for either absolute or constant-dollar stability of
fares, but this is partially viewed as a social welfare measure by
those who do not themselves make much use of mass transit; hence fare
stability is not likely to reduce automobile use significantly
(Section IV.B.4).
• In general, there is considerable public satisfaction with New York
City mass transit in terms of hours of service, proximity of routes and
waiting times, somewhat less satisfaction with on-time service and
travel-time, and widespread apprehensiveness about security. People
are willing to pay - either through increased fares or taxes - for
desired transit improvements (Section III.C).
• The specific standards proposed for safety, reliability, and crowding
are noticeably lower (less stringent) than standards used by other
transit operators, state DOT's, or metropolitan planning organizations
(Section 1II.B).
• The standards proposed for noise, environment and security, and
availability and convenience are stated in very broad terms and would
be very difficult to implement (Section III.B).
-------
94
• The issue of special needs of user groups such as the poor, elderly
and handicapped is not appropriately addressed, no funds are budgeted,
and no funding sources are identified (Sections III.B and V.A).
• The budget level is insufficient to implement even the proposed
transit improvements. Assuming modest values for future inflation
and unemployment rates, an operating'deficit of '$158 to $371 million
is expected (Section V.A).
• The projection of operating assistance funds past 1982 is developed
by methodology which may result in an over-estimation of funds
available for 1983 (Section V.B).
• Fare stabilization is the major line-item cost in the budget. The
current operating subsidy for NYC transit is comparable to other
metropolitan areas; consequently, if proposed fare stabilization is
implemented, NYC riders will be subsidized at twice that rate
(Section V.B).
-------
95
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF OPERATING BUDGETS PROPOSED IN
THE MOYNIHAN-HOLTZMAN SUBMISSION
-------
96
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF OPERATING BUDGETS PROPOSED IN
THE MOYNIHAN-HOLTZMAN SUBMISSION
1. Review of Proposed NYCTA Operating Budget
Table V-3 of the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission presents a proposed annual
operating budget for the New York City Transit Authority through 1983. This
Table is actually for operations as proposed in the S.I.P. rather than for
meeting basic transportation needs and is presented in current rather than
constant dollars. The following is a line by line review of this proposed
operating budget.
a. Farebox Revenue
Farebox revenue is assumed to increase at roughly one percent per year,
based on an economic resurgence in New York City. Ridership, and thus revenue,
are tied directly to C.B.D. employment. It is also assumed that the fare
will remain at fifty cents through 1981. This is not grossly inconsistent with
data presented in "A New Direction in Transit,"Table Xll-8, which shows farebox
revenues increasing by 3.5 percent from 1975-76 to 1976-77, and by 0.6 percent
from 1976-77 to 1977-78.
However, the assumption of an economic resurgence may be unrealistic.
Throughout the summer of 1979 all economic indicators have pointed to an
approaching recession - which may or may not be major. At any rate, it calls
into question any forecasts based upon continued increases in employment. It
is worth noting that New York City typically fares worse in hard times than
the rest of the nation. It is thus fruitful to consider illustrations of the
impact of a recession on estimated farebox revenue.
Assume that a recession begins in late 1979 and produces a one percentage
point increase in unemployment in the City by 1980 and a two percentage point
-------
97
increase by 1981. Assume also that this holds constant through 1983.
Assuming a direct relationship between employment (unemployment) and rider-
ship (and thus farebox revenues),this results in a 1% decline in farebox
revenues by 1980 and an additional 1% decline by 1981. Revenues would also
hold constant from 1981 to 1983. Table A-l shows the changes in farebox
revenues under these assumptions relative to those forecast in the M-H
Submission.
Since the fare is being held constant through 1981, it is
reasonable to interpret this as decline in the real price (due to
inflation). It has been shown that a slight increase in ridership can be
expected to result from fare decreases, so it is appropriate to include a
price effect which will somewhat counter the employment effect. Thus, the
above scenario is modified to assume that ridership (and thus farebox revenues)
decreases by only 0.5 percent from 1979 to 1980 and another 0.5 percent from
1980 to 1981. Revenues will hold constant from that point through 1983.
Table Ar2 shows the results of these assumptions, relative to forecasts of
farebox revenues in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission. It should be noted that
these ridership rates fall below those included in the preliminary 1980-1983
financial plan for the NYCTA, but they are useful for illustrative purposes.
It is clear that the estimates of farebox revenues in the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission may not be as conservative as claimed. On the other hand,
the effect of slight variations in ridership on total income is small - three
percent or less by 1983 -and is probably of little interest relative to the
total budget.
-------
98
TABLE A-l
CHANGES IN FAREBOX REVENUES ASSUMING A DECLINE
IN N.Y.C. EMPLOYMENT
(REVENUES IN $ MILLIONS)
M-H Forecasts
Recession Forecasts
Total change
% Change in Total
Farebox Revenues
% Change in Total
Income
CFY 79
725
725
-
-
-
CFY 80
731
718
13
1.8
1.0
CFY 81
738
711
27
3.7
1.9
CFY 82
745
711
34
4.5
2.3
CFY 83
754
711
43
5.6
2.9
TABLE A-2
CHANGES IN FAREBOX REVENUES ASSUMING A DECLINE
IN EMPLOYMENT AND A PRICE EFFECT
(REVENUES IN $ MILLIONS)
M-H Forecasts
Recession Forecasts
with Price Effect
Total Change
% Change in Total
Farebox Revenues
% Change in Total
Income
CFY 79
725
725
-
-
-
CFY 80
731
721
10
1.3
0.7
CFY 81
738
717
21
2.8
1.5
CFY 82
745
717
28
3.7
1.9
CFY 83
754
717
37
4.8
2.5
-------
99
b. Non-Farebox Revenues
Non-farebaox revenues are projected to increase at an annual average of 1.7
percent over the 1979-1983 period (the entire increase is shown between 1981 and 1982),
"A New Direction in Transit," (Table XII-8) indicates that this component of
revenue increased by almost 13 percent from 1975-76 to 1976-77, and by 17 per-
cent from 1976-77 to 1977-78. Thus, the forecasts in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission show a leveling off of the recent growth trend, and may be quite
conservative. Again, changes in non-farebox revenues will have an extremely
small impact on total income. If an annual rate of increase of 15 percent
were assumed, non-farebox revenues would equal $26 million by 1980. This
represents a change in total revenues of only 0.6 percent.
In conclusion, the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission forecasts of revenues
to be generated over the 1979-1983 period may be less conservative than
indicated. In the event of a recession, revenues may be overstated by 3.0
percent and total income overstated by 1.5 to 2.0 percent. These variations
certainly fall within an expected margin of error for forecasts of this type.
c. Government Assistance
Government assistance is shown in Table V-3 to hold at 43 to 44 percent
of total income over the 1979-1983 period. The annual rate of increase in
Government assistance over this period is shown as 4.8 percent.
Federal Section 5 Operating Assistance. This category of funding deals with
federal dollars allocated under formulae modified by the Surface Transportation
Act of 1978 which also increased the federal funding levels through 1982. It
is difficult to assess the reliability of forecasts of these funds since they
are dependent on several levels of appropriation and allocation. Table Xll-9
-------
100
in "A New Direction in Transit" shows the NYCTA's share of appropriations
in FFY 1978 and 1979, along with authorizations for FFY 1979, 1980, 1981,
1982. If the average NYCTA share for 1978 and 1979 is applied to the appro-
priations, NYCTA Section 5 funds for future years are estimated as follows:
FFY 79 FFY 80 FFY 81 FFY 82 Total
$128 mil. $140 mil. $149 mil. $160 mil. $577 mil.
Note that these figures reflect authorizations rather than appropriations.
Nonetheless, a comparison of these figures with those in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission (Table V-3) is instructive.
CFY 79 CFY 80 CFY 81 CFY 82 CFY 83 Total
'$85 mil. $142 mil. $165 mil. $171 mil. $205 mil. $788 mil.
Only years 1979-1982 can be compared since no federal authorization for FFY
1983 exists. The total funding indicated in Table IV-3 for 1979-1982 is $583
million, very close to the figure estimated using a constant share of
authorizations. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission indicates a shifting of
funds from 1979 to later years (this is discussed further on page 78 of the
Submission). That shift cannot continue beyond 1982, however. To satisfy
the Section 5 forecasts in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission, it is necessary
to assume that the NYCTA will collect a larger share of federal funds than it
has in the past (an assumption stated in the M-H Submission) or that federal
funding levels will be increased. Neither assumption can be verified at this
time. If federal funding beyond 1982 continues the trend shown in present
authorizations, and if NYCTA does not increase its share of those authorizations,
the shortfall in federal funds (assuming shifting of T979 funds through 1981)
could come to $50 million.
-------
101
As a final observation, it should be noted that the estimates of federal
operations assistance in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission are much larger
than those in the preliminary Financial Plan for 1980-1983 prepared for the
Transit Authority, which show funding increases beyond those recommended by
the President ($114.6 million for FFY 80) - substantially below authorization.
The actual fate of funding in this category is beyond the hands of NYDOT.
The M.T.A. is applying for its full share of Section 5 operating funds and
will no doubt continue to do so. Actual funds made available will be
dependent on Federal legislation and allocation decisions made through the
Tri-State Regional Planning Process.
. New York State Operating Assistance. This category of assistance is
obviously dependent on State appropriations,which cannot be guaranteed. The
program was initiated in 1974 and funding to NYCTA held constant at
$70 mil. annually until 1979 when it was increased to $100 mil. This increase
appears to reflect the agreement by the State to pick up $30 million of the
$48 million cost of the 1978 labor contract. However, that agreement called
for the State to carry the entire $43 million in 1979-80, a fact which is not
fully reflected in the forecast of $100 million through 1983.
. New York State Operating Assistance (City Match). This category of
funding is essentially formula based. To the extent that the State's program
remains constant, the City's match will do so as well. The annual figure of
$70 million is forecast to hold constant through 1983. Note that the 1979
figure includes the City's share of the 1978 labor contract agreement (the
State's share of that cost is discussed above).
-------
102
. T.B.T.A. Transfer of Surplus. As required by law, surplus revenues
of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority must be transferred to the
M.T.A. for commuter rail operations purposes. The NYCTA's share has
stayed close to $69 million since 1976-77. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission
predicts that these surplus revenues will increase at an increasing rate
(1.4 percent from CFY 79 to CFY 80 to 5.3 percent from CFY 82 to CFY 83).
These forecasts may be quite reasonable except for the possibility that the
T.B.T.A. may finance the City's new Convention Center, in which case surplus
revenues may decrease substantially. This possibility is not discussed in
the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission.
. New York City Reimbursements. This category includes reimbursements for
such items as Transit Police, reduced school fares, reduced Senior Citizens'
fares, etc. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission shows City reimbursements in-
creasing from $215 million in CFY 79 to $220 million in CFY 83, a rate of
increase of roughly 0.5 percent per year. The CFY 79 figure of $215 million
reflects a 5 percent increase over the 1977-78 figures presented in "A New
Direction for Transit." However, in Executive Budget - Fiscal Year 1980,
Message of the Mayor, the 1980 City contribution is shown as $287.5 million,
a figure which includes both City matching funds and reimbursements. This is
consistent with the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission; it appears that this
category of income is realistically estimated. (The Mayor's message states
that $25 million of the $70 million matching funds will come out of the
Capital Budget in 1980 so there may actually be a $25 million increase in
reimbursements.) It should also be noted that in the Moynihan-Holtzman
Submission the estimated City reimbursements do not reflect the fact that
the City is paying roughly $170 million annually for debt service for the
NYCTA.
-------
103
This review suggests that the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission may be
over-estimating government assistance by as much as $50 million in 1983,
assuming that T.B.T.A. transfers hold constant. This is approximately
7 percent of total government assistance and 3 percent of total income.
This shortfall, if it should occur, will require doubling the additional
income/savings category. The sources of these additional funds are not
identified.
d. Expenses
Expenses are divided into Operating and Non-Operating, with Operating
accounting for roughly 90 percent of the total (this does not include Capital
Investment).
The biggest single component of operating expenses is Salaries and
Wages (over 60 percent of total operating expenses), followed by fringe benefits
(over 20 percent of total). Thus, employee costs constitute four out of five
operating dollars. The Moynihan-Holtzman Submission forecasts are based on
the assumption that these costs will increase at 4% per year from 1980 to 1983.
This is in marked contrast to past trends. Since the figures in Table V-3 of
the Submission are in current dollars, it appears that they propose a real
reduction in wages, salaries and fringes unless the rate of inflation falls
below 4 percent per year. This reduction would occur during a period when
ridership is projected to increase by 1'percent per year and maintenance and
repair operations are to be expanded. It seems reasonable to assume that real
wages and salaries of NYCTA employees will not go down - at best they will
match inflation. If average wages increase at the rate of inflation, and if
total wages, salaries and fringes increase at a rate less than inflation, the
number of employees must decrease according to:
-------
104
(1+ r™) = (l+rN) (l+rAW) where:
TW
r = Annual rate of change in total expenditures
on wages/salaries, and fringes,
r = Annual rate of change in Number of employees, and
AW
r = Annual rate of change in average wages/salaries
and fringes.
Assuming that total expenditures on wages/salaries and fringes increased at
an annual rate of 4 percent, an annual inflation rate of 8 percent will require
a reduction in employees of 3.7 percent per year. If this occurs over the
three year period from 1980 to 1983, the total reduction in employees will be
14 percent. Inflation rates of 10 percent and 12 percent will generate
reductions in employment by 1983 of 20 percent and 25 percent, respectively.
It seems unlikely that such decreases in the NYCTA work force can be
accommodated by increases in productivity alone. There must be a cutback in
operations.
Productivity in the United States has not been increasing rapidly in
recent years - it has declined slightly. However, since the equipment
used by NYCTA is quite old, it may not be unreasonable to assume a slight-
increase in productivity, say 2 percent, associated with equipment upgrading.
This can be reflected in a 2 percent reduction in the total number of employees.
Using the relationship developed above, assuming that average wages/salaries and
fringes keep pace with inflation, it can be shown that the total expenditure
on wages/salaries and fringes must increase by 5.8 percent, 7.8 percent and
9.8 percent for inflation rates of 8, 10 and 12 percent respectively.
Applying these rates to the CFY 80 figures for wages/salaries and fringes
yields the following (Table A-3) estimates for CFY 81, 82 and 83.
Derivation on following page.
-------
105
Footnote
TW = Total Wages, Salaries and Fringes Expenditures
N = Number of Employees
AW = Average Wage/Salary and fringe per employee
TW « N ' AW
TW' = Total Wages, Salaries and fringes after 1 time period
= TW (1+ r™)
N1 = Number of Employees after 1 time period
= N (1+ rN)
AW'S Average Wage ... After one time period
= AW (1 + rAW)
r = Respective annual rates of change
TW1 = N1 . AW1
TU1
'
but . AW
N(Hr)
(l+rN)(l+rAW;
-------
106
TABLE A-3
COMBINED FORECASTS OF SALARIES/WAGES PLUS FRINGES,
FOR VARIOUS INFLATION RATES (NYCTA)
(IN $ MILLIONS)
M-H Forecasts
8% Inflation
10% Inflation
12% Inflation
CFY 80 CFY 81
977 1,053
977 1 ,033
977 1 ,053
977 1,073
CFY 82
1,074
1,094
1,135
1,178
CFY 83
1,120
1,157
1,224
1,293
TABLE A-4
FORECASTS OF FUEL AND POWER EXPENDITURES,
ASSUMING CONSTANT CONSUMPTION AND PRICES
MATCHING INFLATION (NYCTA)
(IN $ MILLIONS)
M-H Forecasts
8% Inflation
10% Inflation
12% Inflation
CFY 79
91
91
91
91
CFY 80
98
98
100
102
CFY 81
103
106
no
114
CFY 82
107
115
121
128
CFY 83
113
124
133
143
-------
107
Thus, modest assumptions about inflation rates, real wage rates and
productivity yield estimates of future wage/salary and fringe expenditures
which range from $37 million to $177 million above those in the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission. This equals from 2.5 percent to 11.5 percent of total
expenditures, a substantial variation.
Fuel and Power expenditures are also difficult to estimate. The Moyni-
han-Holtzman Submission shows those expenditures increasing at slightly over
5.5 percent per year, a rate that may not even keep pace with inflation. It
certainly doesn't reflect recent experience in prices of either petroleum based
fuel or electricity.
The relationship developed for wages/salaries and fringes is equally
applicable here. Assuming a growth rate in expenditures of 5.5 percent, and
that prices increase at the rate of inflation (conservative relative to recent
history), inflation rates of 8, 10 and 12 percent generate reductions in
energy use of 2.3, 4.0 and 6.0 percent respectively. This obviously requires
substantially greater energy efficiency or a curtailment of operations.
Energy efficiencies are generally difficult to achieve, especially in
view of the current program to convert to air conditioned subway cars at the
rate of 800-1,000 cars per year through 1982. While data are not available
on energy needs of air conditioned cars, it is clear that they require more
than can be provided by the existing third rail on some lines. Thus it seems
unreasonable to'expect total energy use to decline in the forthcoming years.
Assuming it holds constant and that energy prices keep pace with inflation,
the rate of growth in fuel and power expenditures must also equal the inflation
rate. Depending on the inflation rate, estimates of fuel and power expenditures
can be made for CFY 80, 81, 82 and 83 (see Table A.4). These estimates exceed
-------
108
those in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission for 1983, by from $11 million to $30
million (0.7 percent to 2.0 percent).
The final category of operating expenditures shown on Table V-3 of
the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission is an undefined "other" category. This is
projected to increase at a decreasing rate (9 percent from CFY 79 to CFY 80,
6 percent from CFY 82 to CFY 83), which averages 6.7 percent. Without knowing
more about this category of expenditures, it is impossible to say whether the
estimates are realistic. It will be assumed that they are as good as can be
made.
Table V-3 of the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission also includes three
items of expenditure listed as Non-Operating: Debt Service; Capital
Engineering; and Transit Police.
Debt Service is shown to decrease substantially from CFY 82 to CFY 83.
Since Debt Service is readily calculated from currently outstanding debt,
it seems unnecessary to question this figure. It bears repeating here that
the City is also paying some $170 million per year in debt service for the
NYCTA.
Capital Engineering is shown to increase very slightly over the four
year period - an average rate of increase of 1.5 percent per year. While this
may not be unreasonable given that anticipated capital investments will involve
little expansion of the system, it should be noted the CFY 79 figure is
substantially higher than that shown for 1978 in "A New Direction in Transit."
This presumably reflects the State's policy of upgrading the overall capital
engineering program so as to facilitate the use of available capital grants.
The final category of Non-Operating Expenses is that of the Transit
Police. Police expenditures are shown to increase at 2 percent per year
-------
109
(from $96 million in CFY 79 to $104 million in CFY 83). It should be recalled
that the City reimburses the N.Y.C.T.A. for transit police expenditures. Thus,
variations here will be matched by variations in City reimbursements.
It appears that the operating expenses listed on Table V-3 of the
Moynihan-Holtzman Submission understates expenditures without justification.
Such justification must confront issues of increased worker productivity/
decreased work force, increased energy efficiency/decreased energy consumption.
Making modest assumptions about these factors, it is estimated that operating
expenditures will exceed those in the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission by anywhere
from $48 million to $203 million in CFY 83 (see Table A.5). This amounts to
some three to thirteen percent of total estimated expenditures.
TABLE A-5
UNDERSTATEMENT IN FORECASTS OF 1983 OPERATING
EXPENDITURES FOR NYCTA
(IN $ MILLIONS)
Wages/Salaries and
Fringes
Fuel and Power
Other
Total
8%
Inflation
37
11
-
48
12%
Inflation
173
30
-
203
-------
no
2. Review of the Proposed MTA Commuter Rail Operating Budget
Reviewing the proposed operating budget for MTA's Commuter Rail
Operation (Table V-4 of the Moynihan-Holtzman Submission) is difficult due
to the dearth of historical data with which to construct trends. Thus, one
must rely subjective judgments of the trends apparent in the forecasts. It
should be noted that the Commuter Rail Budget is roughly one third that of
the NYCTA; thus fluctuations around the forecasts will have a
smaller impact on the total MTA budget than will fluctuations around the
forecasts for the NYCTA.
a. Farebox Revenues
. For Commuter Rail Operations, farebox revenues account for three-
fourths of all revenues and forty percent of all income. This holds relatively
constant through 1983 except that the proportion of total income provided by
fareboxes declines slightly from 41 percent in 1979 to 38 percent in 1983.
Of all income sources, farebox revenues are shown to increase at the lowest
rate,1.6 percent annually. Still, this is a slightly higher rate of increase
than projected for NYCTA which is constrained by the fixed fare. Since the
fixed fare doesn't apply to commuter operations, the low rate of increase in
farebox revenues must reflect either a decrease in ridership or a decrease in
fare relative to the cost of living. If fares increase along with the cost of
living, the 1.6 percent rate of increase in farebox revenues reflectsa rider-
ship decline of 6, 8, or 10 percent for inflation rates of 8, 10, or 12 percent
respectively. If ridership grows at the rate projected for NYCTA, 1 per-
cent per year, real fares must decline by 7, 9, or 10 percent for inflation
rates of 8, 10 and 12 percent respectively. Since neither relative fare
-------
m
decreases nor declines in ridership of this magnitude seem likely by 1983,
it appears that the Moynihan-Holtzman estimates of farebox revenues may be
understated, but the magnitude of the understatement is highly dependent on
fare policy. For illustrative purposes, if fares are allowed to keep pace
with inflation and ridership holds constant, revenue increases of from $53
million for an 8 percent inflation rate to $91 million for a 12 percent
inflation rate will be generated.
Non-farebox Revenues
Non-farebox revenues account for roughly 25 percent of all revenues
throughout the forecast period. As a proportion of total income, they decline
slightly from 30.8 percent in 1978 to 27.7 percent in 1983, but this reflects
more an increase in government assistance than a decrease in non-farebox
revenues.
Non-farebox revenues are projected to increase at a rate of 3.2 percent
per year. The source of non-farebox revenues is unclear but probably includes
track fees for freight shipment, advertising, concessions, etc. However,
without further information it is impossible to say more than that the
projections don't match inflation rates, and thus may be conservative.
Total revenues,composed of farebox and non-farebox revenues,are
projected to increase at the modest rate of 2.1 percent per year. Based on
the above discussion, these projections seem conservative and may understate
total revenues over the projection period.
c. Government Assistance
Governmental assistance includes four revenue sources: Federal Section
5 Operating Assistance; New York State Operating Assistance, State Share;
New York State Operating Assistance, Local Share; and Other. Of these, the
-------
112
two parts of the New York State Operating Assistance Program are assumed to
hold constant over the projection period, an assumption consistent with that
used in the NYCTA forecasts.
Federal Section 5 Operating Assistance is shown increasing substantially
from 1978 to 1979 and is then projected to increase at an annual rate of 3
percent.which is considerably below that used for the NYCTA budget
projections. Since both projections assume a constant share of Section 5
funds allocated to the New York State portion of the urbanized area, one
wonders why the growth rates are not the same. However, as was pointed out
in the review of the NYCTA proposed operating budget, Section 5 funds
appear to have been overstated. According to Table XII-9 of "A New Direction
of Transit," Federal Section 5 authorizations through 1982 show an annual
increase of 8.9 percent from 1979, including Basic, Second Tier and Urban
Rail programs. Again, this suggests that the Federal Operating Assistance
projected for commuter rail activities is understated. However, given the
vagaries of appropriations and allocations, these projections may be realistic.
'Other1 government assistance, the final component of government
assistance income,is shown as dropping from 1978 to 1979, and then increasing
at an annual rate of 7.4 percent through 1983. These funds reflect payment of
real costs, i.e.,L.I.R.R. freight deficits, local station maintenance costs,
etc., and it seems reasonable that they increase at a rate consistent with a
modest rate of inflation.
In summary, total income for Commuter Rail Operations is projected as
increasing at a very modest 3.4 percent per year from 1979 to 1983. Most of
the components are estimated conservatively, suggesting that total income
may be somewhat understated. It is, however, impossible to estimate the magnitude
of the understatement.
-------
113
d. Expenditures
The two major components of operating expenditures are wages and
salaries and fringe benefits. The former is projected to increase from 1979 to
1983 at an annual rate of 4.6 percent and the latter at 4.9 pe.cent. This
is slightly above the 1978 labor agreement for the NYCTA but below the
trend of other recent labor agreements. If it is assumed that wages/salaries
and fringes will keep pace with inflation, the model developed for the review
of the proposed NYCTA operating budget indicates that the total number
of employees must decrease annually by 3, 5 or 7 percent for inflation rates
of 8, 10 or 12 percent respectively. While increased productivity may allow
some reduction in work force, it is unlikely that productivity can continually
absorb work force cuts in this range.
If a productivity increase of 2 percent per year is accepted and
reflected in a 2 percent annual reduction in employees, expenditures on wages/
salaries and fringes must increase at annual rates of 5.8, 7.8 and 9.8 percent
for inflation rates (for average wage rate increases of 8, 10 and
12 percent respectively). Table A-6 shows the impact on expenditures. The
Moynihan-Holtzman estimates may be understated by from $19 million to $66
million by 1983. This amounts to from 3.6 percent to 12.7 percent of total
expenditures.
Expenditures for fuel, power and utilities constitute roughly 10 percent
of total operating expenditures for the MTA commuter rail operations. These
expenditures are projected to increase at an annual rate of 5.6 percent from
1979 to 1983, a rate considerably below recent trends in energy prices.
Accepting the conservative assumption that energy prices will keep pace with
inflation, the rate of increase of 5.6 percent implies annual reductions in
-------
114
TABLE A-6
COMBINED ESTIMATES OF SALARIES/WAGES PLUS FRINGES
FOR COMMUTER RAIL, FOR VARIOUS INFLATION RATES
(IN $ MILLIONS)
M-H Forecasts
8% Inflation
10% Inflation
12% Inflation
1980
337
337
337
337
1981
351
357
363
370
1982
365
377
392
406
1983
380
399
422
446
TABLE A-7
FORECASTS OF FUEL, POWER AND UTILITIES EXPENDITURES FOR
COMMUTER RAIL ACTIVITIES ASSUMING 2% REDUCTION IN CONSUMPTION
AND VARIOUS INFLATION RATES
(IN # MILLIONS)
M-H Forecasts
8% Inflation
10% Inflation
12% Inflation
1980
47
47
47
47
1981
50
50
51
52
1982
53
53
55
57
1983
56
56
59
62
-------
115
energy consumption of 2.2, 4, or 5.7 percent for inflation rates of 8, 10
and 12 percent respectively.
While a sustained two percent annual reduction may be reasonable,
higher reductions probably require major changes for which there is no justi-
fication. Assuming an annual reduction of two percent, with energy prices
keeping pace with inflation, expenditures on energy must increase at annual
rates of 5.8, 7.8 or 9.8 percent for inflation rates of 8, 10 and 12 percent
respectively. Table A-7 shows the impact of these assumptions on annual
expenditures for energy. It appears that the Moynihan-Holtzman estimates are
consistent with the 8 percent annual inflation rate and a 2 percent annual
reduction in energy consumption. At higher rates of inflation, the Moynihan-
Holtzman estimates fall short by as much as $6 million in 1983. However, this
is only 1.1 percent of total expenditures and is probably within the expected
confidence interval of the total estimates.
The final category of Operating Expenditures is designated "Other."
It is held roughly constant, increasing at an annual rate of just 0.9 percent
from 1979 to 1983. Uhile it is somewhat difficult (in the absence of detailed
information) to justify holding this category constant in the face of inflation,
it is equally difficult to establish an appropriate rate of change. Some of
the components such as leases, rentals, and insurance may be fixed contractually
throughout the projection period. Others may increase at an unknown rate,
depending on consumption and price.
Assuming that 1980 expenditures are easily predictable, and that they
will grow at half the inflation rate from 1980 to 1983, the understatement
inherent in the Moynihan-Holtzman projections ranges from $4 million for an
8 percent inflation rate to $9 million for a 12 percent inflation rate. At
-------
116
most this constitutes only 1.7 percent of total expenditures.
In total, it appears that operating expenditures for MTA comnuter
rail activities are somewhat understated by 1983 (see Table A-8).
TABLE A-8
UNDERSTATEMENT IN FORECASTS OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES
FOR COMMUTER RAIL ACTIVITIES, 1983 (IN $ MILLIONS)
Wages/Salaries
and Fringes
Fuel, Power and
Utilities
Other
Total
8%
Inflation
19
0
4
23
12%
Inflation
66
6
9
81
This amounts to from 4.4 percent to 15.6 percent of total estimated
expenditures in 1983. While it was suggested that income was also understated,
it is not likely that all of the increased expenditures can be covered.
Thus expected deficits will be much larger than shown in the Moynihan-
Holtzman Submission. There is no indication of how these deficits will be
covered.
-------
117
APPENDIX B
EXHIBITS FOR
SECTION II.C BASIC TRANSPORTATIONS NEEDS
IN THE NEW YORK CONTEXT
-------
Exhibit II.C.I
Express Bus and Subway Coverage of the 1970 Population
SOURCE, NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
POPULATION SERVED BV «
PER CENT POPULATION SERVED BY;
Either Either
Both Express Both Express Neither Ratioi pally
Express Bus or Ex- Express 'Bus or Express Express Auto Trips to
1970 Express Sub- Bus l Subway press Sub- Bus t Subway Bus Subway BUB Nor Manhattan CBO
BOROUGH COPULATION Bus way(l) Subway or Both BUB way(l) Subway or Doth Only Only- Subwav ^Population x 100
Manhat-
tan 1,539,233 218,914 1,
Bronx 1,471,701 457,512
Brooklyn 2,602.012 473,100 1,
Queens 1,986,473 567,716
Staten
Island 295,443 146,666
333,419
953,939
876,094
683,329
53,594
TOTAL 7,894,862 1,863,908 4,900,375
(1) Subway refers co the Transit Authority
along elevated and private right-of-wa
Island; does not include Penn Central
SOURCE* Estimated by Wilbur Smith and Asso
and transit coverayu maps. 2,000
express hus stop.
154,485 1,397,848 14 87 10 91 4 77 9 .55 (
316,739 1,094,712 31 65 22 74 9 43 26 .53
239,563 2,109,631 IB 72 9 81 9 63 19 .44
1S4.469 1,096,576 29 34 8 55 21 26 45 .77
33,878 166,382 SO IB 11 56 39 7 44 .60
899,134 5.865,149 24 62 11
rail system, including- routes
y linast includes SIRTOA on Staten
or Long Island Railroads, as of July, 1975.
elates from 1970 Census data
feet from subway station of .25 mile from
74 13 51 26
\i3\My5\y 2G
00
-------
119
Exhibit II.C.2
Choice of Mod* for Work Trips by Place of Residence
100
Suowiy
Rlil
70
-30
•20
.10
• 0
m* r«i« a Mr n
SOURCE:
HPA, Transportation and Economic Opportunity, 1973.
-------
MEANS OP TRANSPORTATION INTO MANHATTAN
(Baaat Uae transportation meana other than walking)
fOIAL ANS
|-DNlVf CAM
3-VAN OM CAR POOL
3-SUBWAV
4-ENPRES9 BUS
B-lOCAt. BUS
O-IIIAIN
7-IAKI
JJ°J*
MAM-
" CDE
~ OR MICI1
*- EDUCAflOM -» • ---- AGE --- • » ----- INCOME ---- •
50
114.
JfAL 1
aao
tax
IX
VOX
4X
I7X
3X
ax
[DIAL Q
023
aox
IX
73X
BX
BX
4X
IX
UEENS
aoi
a&x
-
flax
4X
BX
vx
«
-iVN 1
379
tox
ax
B3X
tx
BX
IX
•
IRON*
147
16X
IX
TOX
14X
4X
3X
tx
TIAN
197
I4X
IX
BIX
-
B5X
•»
BX
LESS
SO
9X
-
79X
-
asx •
-
ax
sen
409
I6X*
IX
7IX
3X
19X
3X
IX
EGE
349
34X
IX
09X
ex
lex
3X
ax
39
303
tax
ax
BBX
tx
I3X
ax
IX
49
300
34X
•
B7X
BX
13X
3X
ax
OVER
ati
aox
•
53X
7X
a7X
4X
3X
J7M
156
7X
-
7IX
3X
aax
tx
3X
999
313
13X
ax
7SX
4X
tax
3X
tx
999
331
30X
•
6SX
OX
MX
3X
IX
OVER
73
aex
. tx
67X
4X
14X
4X
SX
ro
o
SOURCE: NVSpOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation.System, April 1978.
-------
121
Exhibit II.C.4
Mode Used for NYC Work Trips
Among Various Age Groups
Z of Age Groups Making Work Trips*
Mode 18-34 35-54 55+
Auto 21.66 23.55 20.18
Bus 7.39 22.57 18.64
Subway/Railroad 62.50 34.30 38.13
Bus & Subway 2.42 11.75 8.41
Walk/Other 6.03 7.82 23.04
*Columns may not total 100.0% due to rounding
While the 18-34 group is the most heavily dependent upon the
subway for work trips, the 55+ group travels this way more
so than the 35-54, although the latter group makes up a larger
proportion of riders that use that mode. The 55+ group, in
fact, uses the subway more than any other mode to get to work,
probably because most of the employment opportunities for
that group are located in Manhattan.
The importance of the 18-34 group among subway riders arises
from the nature of employment in Manhattan. The financial
and communication professions employ large numbers of young
adults, and the thousands of offices that cluster at the
lower end of Manhattan depend on a large number of young
secretaries for a work force.
SOURCE: Weiss & Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit
Users," 1976.
-------
1-22
Mode
Auto
Bus
Subway/KR
Subway & Bus
Walk/Other
Exhibit II.C.5
Mode Used for NYC Non-Work Trips
Among Various Age Groups
18-34
Z of Age Groups
35-5A
55+
49.24
18.39
22.63
0
9.75
49.16
29.11
17.02
0
4.72
34.67
52.70
6.06
1.60
4.96
SOUPCE; Weiss & Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit Users," 1976.
-------
>23
Exhibit II.C.6
Mode Used *<*' K?C w°rk Trips
Mode
Auto
Bus
Subway /Railroad
Bus & Subway
Walk/Other
Aaonc Various Income Groups
I of Tneane Groups Making Work Trips*
0-
2999
0
0
0
0
0
3000-
5999
21. 48
0
52.54
11.83
14.09
6000-
3999
2.19
0
81.51
7.82
8.49
9000-
11999
27.78
29.31
28.41
0
14.51
12000-
14999
16.48
22.49
30.07
9.30
21.65
15000-
24999
34.22
12.98
42.73
10.07
0
25000+
15.10
53.22
16.70
8.97
6.02
*Columns nay not total 100.OZ due to rounding
SOURCE: Weiss & Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit Users," 1976.
-------
124
Exhibit II.C.7
Modes Used for NYC Non-Work Trios
Among Various Income Groups
Mode
Auto
Bus
Subway /RR
Subway & Bus
Walk/Other
Z Income Grouos , in Working Force*
0-
$2999
37.08
53.22
9.70
0
0
$3000-
5999
36.89
33.19
19.35
0
10.07
$6000-
8999
13.50
43.66
37.53
0
5.31
$9000-
11999
43.60
28.34
24.36
0
3.70
$12000-
14999
51.30
28.53
4.60
0
15.56
$15000-
24999
70.73
14.48
10.37
0
4.41
$25000
57.06
24.48
7.68
4.12
6.66
*Coluons may not total 100.0% due to rounding
SOUBCE: Weiss & Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit Users," 1976.
-------
1*5
2.7-
2.6-
2.5-
2.4 -
2.3-
22-
2.1-
2.0
1.9-
1.8-
1.7
1.6-
1.5-
1.4-
1.3-
U-
1.1 -
1.0-
3-
.8-
.7 .
.6 •
.4-
J-
2-
0.1-
0-
Home-Based Linked Weekday Trips i-«tt t»r-. UPPV inco
.
AUTO
SCHOOL BUS
TAXI
Exhibit I I.C. 8
BUS
SUBWAY
RAIL
Home-Based Trips per Person by Income
%
AM
3?"5"
Vy/
-
>•
g
X
>^>y
W
'
M
I
by Mode Related to Residential
Density in the New York Region
^
«•
Wb.
' -.^y?j
•
• •
'
*
'
-.
y
%
1
VK
H
i
••
iLi
1
1
S^
k x»2 B§«
x"^Ea t.^x3&t E&Bi
' ' i 1 1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 '
0.8 1.9 3.7 7.0 16
P
i
\
•.
f\
• "*
'
>
f
^ :
p
0
L
1
i5S^
^^
^
xxRx!
CYA"
S^G
•i •
42
F71
f
\
?
_.
;
i
_
I
1
K^—
KSKE1?
P^X: i
IP
fy
I
^
AtSSS
1
|:
1
i
;r
|i:
!••
1
%
i
%
Si
Si
•T!
L
'M
p
i
m
i
r^
-------
126
Exhibit II.C.9
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK CITY
FAMILY INCOME AND AVAILABILITY
OF AN AUTOMOBILE
80 '
70 •
= 60 -I
I
I 50
2
I -
e
5 30
u
e
20
X Hew York City Averaee
.» Borough Averages
• Poverty Areas
® Middle-Income Areas
10 20 30 40
Per Cent of Faailies nnder $4.000
50
SOURCE: Transportation Needs of the Poor, 1969.
-------
127
Exhibit II.C.10
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK CITY
FAMILY INCOME AND USE OF PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE JOURNEY TO WORK
80
70
«
it
I
I
3
5
5 «o
O
*i
30
20
10
V Hew York City Average
» Borough Averages
e Poverty Areas
• Middle-Income Areas
10 20 30 40
?«r Cent of Fanilie* Under $4,000
SO
SOURCE; Ornati; Transportation Needs of the Poor, 1369.
-------
128
Exhibit II.C.ll
Mode
Auto
Bus
Subway/Railroad
Subway & Bus
WalH/Other
Mode Used for NYC Work Trips
Among Various Races
of Racial Group Making Work Trips*
White
23.32
19.60
32.12
11.55
13.41
Black
18.76
16.78
64.46
0
0
Sp. American
24.97
0
59.26
0
15.77
Other
0
0
100.0
0
0
^Columns may not total 100.02 due to rounding
SODECE: Weiss & Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit Users," 1976.
-------
129
Mode
Auto
Bus
Subway/Railroad
Subway & Bus
Walk/Other
Exhibit II.C.12
Mode Used for NYC Hon
Tf>ps
Among Various Races
Z Racial Group Making Work Trips
White
Black
Sp. American
Other
47.17
34.97
10.20
.76
6.90
31.52
31.76
30.55
0
6.18
38.53
29.66
25.72
0
6.09
100
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Weiss fi Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit Users," 1976.
-------
130
Exhibit 11. C.I 3
50DRCE: NYC Transit Authority, "A.Study of Attitudes toward the NY Subway," June 1975.
Handicaps in Traveling
O Seven out of every 100 New Yorkers have some health problem or
handicap. One out of ten Bronx residents have such problems while only
three out of 100 Queens resident do.
Incidence of Health Problems or Handicaps
Total Queens Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn
% % % % %
Have health problem
or handicap 73 6 10 7
Do not have health
problem or handicap 93 97 93 90 92
100% 100% 99% 100% 100%
(Number of Respondents) (79S) (200) (199) (198) (200)
• The single most prevelant inhibitor of travel appears to be problems
in going up stairs, with over seven out of ten persons who have health problems
saying that they do that with difficulty.
-------
Exhibit II.CJ4
NYC Transit Authority, "A Study of Attitudes toward the NY Subway." June 1975.
Degree of Difficulty of Actions Among.
Persons with Health Problems or Handicaps
>up stairs
jdown stairs
) up inclines / slopes
|:6p/kneel/c rouch
and get up
or carry over 10 pounds
,e or grasp
e in crowds
IB escalators
.
elevators
|lt standing
r
3 more than one block
With No
With
Difficulty
But No
Difficulty Aid Needed
%
23
49
f
41
54
69
42
56
66
61
78
86
41
69
75
49
57
42
31
54
44
33
39
21
14
57
29
Aid Needed/
Can't Do
At All
% %
2
2
2
4
2
2
Total
% (Numbe r
of
Respondents
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(53)
(53)
(53)
(52)
(52)
(52)
(52)
(51)
(51)
(51)
(51)
(53)
(51)
-------
132
Exhibit 11.C.I 5
Transportation Modes Used in Work and Non-Work
Automobile
Bus
Subway /RR
Subway * Bus
Walk/Other
Trips,
New York
Work
Z Total Trips
21.6
15.6
44.9
7.3
10.5
New York State,
City
Non-Work
2 Total Trips
44.5
33.1
15.4
.5
6.5
1974*
Rest of
Work
2 Total Trips
78.9
5.1
16.0
State
Non-Work
2 Total Trips
90.7
5.2
4.1
"Columns may not total 1002 because of rounding
SOURCE: Weiss & Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit Users," 1976.
-------
Exhibit 11.C.I6
3JCB: NYC Transit Authority, "A Study of Attitudes toward the NY Subway," June 1975,
• The subway is used by more respondents to get to shopping than airy
other way of traveling.
Most Often Used
Way of Traveling to Shopping
Total Queens Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn
% % % % %
Auto 15 27 11- 15 10
Subway 77 71 68 74 89
Bus 38 53 20 39 35
Taxi 11 ~ 2 —
r
Walk 6_ 7 6_ 3_ 7
137% 159% 105% 133% 141%
(Number of Pespondents) (412) (90) (108) (110) (106)
(Table adds to more than 100 percent because of multiple answers - e. g.,
subway and bus.)
-------
134
Exhibit II.C.I7
NYC Transit Authority, "A Study of Attitudes toward the NY Subway," June 1975.
• The subway is used by more respondents to get to their recreation
area than any other mode of transportation.
Most Often Used Way of Traveling
to Recreation Area
Total Queens Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn
Auto
Subway
Bus
Taxi
Walk
(Number of Respondents)
_%*
20
89
33
1
I
144%
(385)
%*
33
95
52
—
2
183%
(109)
%*
10
85
10
2
2
109%
(91)
Jt*
19
86
28
1
--
134%
(88)
%*
16
87
32
1
1
137%
(94)
* (Table adds to more than 100 percent because of multiple answers - e.g.
subway and bus.)
-------
135
Exhibit 11. C.I 8
How New Yorkers Travel
• Over one out of four New Yorkers use the subway almost every day.
Three out of ten, however, use it less often than a few times a month vfcile
two out of ten use it only a few times a month.
• Brooklyn has more very frequent and infrequent subway users than any
other borough. Three of ten Brooklyn residents use the subway almost every-
day and over one out of three use it less often than a few times a month.
Frequency of Subway Ridership
Total
JL
26
9
15
20
30
100%
(799)
Queens
JL
20
6
24
18
13
99%
(200)
Manhattan
%
25
15
10
31
17
98%
(200)
Bronx
JL
27
8
16
15
34
100%
(198)
Brooklyn
JL.
30
9
11
16
34
100%
(200)
Frequency
Almost every day
A few times a week
Once a week
A few times a month
Less often
(Number of Respondents)
SYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY, "A Study of Attitudes toward the NY Subway," June 1975.
-------
136,
Exhibit JI.C-.19-
•g. NYC Transit Authority, "A Study of Attitudes toward the NY Subway," June 1975.
How New Yorkers Use The Subway
• New Yorkers are almost evenly divided in their main use of the subway:
about one out of three use it most often for work, for shopping and for recreation.
• Shopping is the major purpose of using the subway by over four out of ten
residents of Manhattan and the Bronx. Among Brooklyn residents, work is the
major purpose, with nearly four out of ten using it for that reason. Almost
four out of ten Queens residents ride the subway mainly to go shopping or mainly
to go out for recreation.
Main Use of the Subway
Total Queens Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn
Work
Shopping
Recreation
(Number of Respondents)
• Respondents who use the subway mainly for work were asked whether they
used it more often for shopping or recreation. The division, between shopping
and recreation for all respondents is nearly equal. In three of the four boroughs
over half the respondents ride the subway mainly for shopping in Queens, how-
ever, over half ride it mainly to go out for recreation.
JL
32
38
12
100%
(799)
JL
25
36
38
99%
(200)
JL
30
44
21
99%
(200)
JL
32
41
11
100%
(198)
_%_
39
32
28
99%
(200)
-------
137
Exhibit II.C.20
Getting Worse Not Batter
• The public is not only largely unhappy with the bus and subway sys-
tem but a majority (522) also feel it is getting worse compared to five
years ago. Only 22 say the system has Improved, while 332 believe it has re-
mained about the same. Bronx respondents are acre likely than others to feel
the system is deteriorating. Almost 2 out of 3 Bronx respondents (652)
say the system has gotten worse, while 282 say it has remained about the same.
Queens residents are the least negative, almost evenly divided, 43-422, between
those who rate it worse and those who rate it about the same as five years
ago:
CQBPAftED TO FIVE TEAM AGO, DO YC« fill. TMAT TM£ WS A»O SUflWAT SYSTEM IN NgU
cm is car rusr esrrw?
(Base:• Total staple)
TOTAL
TOTAL ANS 923
8ETTCR »
WORSE • 52*
AOCUT THC M03
NOT sues
SOURCE: NYSDOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation System, April 1973.
-------
138
Exhibit II.C.21
Satisfaction with Subway Service
Question
How satisfied are you with the hours of available subway
service?
Destination Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Manhattan 28.5% • 18.0% 53.5*
Outer Borough 24.5 18.0 57.5
Outside N.Y.C. 32.5 27.0 40.5
••"_
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
139
% Passengers
Exhibit II.C.22
Bi-directional peak (morning):
16.7% of 24-hour travel
One-Directional Peaking Patterns of
Rapid Transit (Trips Crossing Cordon
of Manhattan CBD)
oJ ,
4 S 6 7 8 91011121 2345673 91011121 234
noon midnight
Inbound Subway
T v T -i i r i i ri f I i i i \ i i i
* S S 7 3 91011121 2345673 91011121 234
noon midnight
Outbound Subway
SOUHC*: PushJcarev fi Zupan, Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, 1977.
-------
140
Exhibit II.-C.23
Satisfaction with Subway Service
Question IV.A:
How satisfied are you with the time it takes to travel during
rush hour by subway?
Destination Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Manhattan 39.0% 17.0% 44.0%
Outer Borough 30.0 23.0 47.0
Outside N.Y.C. 31.0 19.0 50.0
Question IV.B:
How satisfied are you with the tine you have to wait during
rush hours for a subway?
Destination Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Manhattan 43.0% 18.0% 40.0%
Outer Borough 42.0 27.0 30.0
Outside N.Y.C. 41.0 26.0 33.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
141
Exhibit Ii.C.24
HOW HUGH TIL-IE.IS THESE BETWEEN TRAINS DURING TEE RUSH HOUR?
(Base: Hes^ovuleats who ride a. subway to lianliattaa, destinations)
TOTAL ANS
NCN
MAN-
HA- MAN-
TTAN BROOK HA-
RTAL TOTAL QUEENS -LYN BRONX TTAN
572 453
124 227 102 119
1 - 3 MINUTES
4-6 MINUTES
7 - 10 MINUTES
11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21 - 30 MINUTES
OVER 30 MINUTES
OCN'T USE
NOT SURE
4X
32X
|sx)
14X
sx
IX
1X
2X
6X
5X
32X
34X
15X
6X
1X
•
IX
6X
6X
4 OX
23X
9X
6X
2X
IX
3X
9X
2X
25X
42X
1SX
6X
IX
•
1X
4X
8X
38X
SOX
13X
SX
-
-
-
6X
3X
30%
37X
10X
3X
2X
2X
4S
8X
HOW MUCH TIME IS THE2E BETWEEN TRAINS DURING THE NON-RUSH HOUR PERIOD?
(Base: Respondents who ride a subway to Manhattan destinations)
TOTAL ANS
NCN
MAN-
MA- MAN-
TTAN BSCOK HA-
TOTAL TOTAL QUEENS -LYN BRONX TTAN
570 451
124 226 101 119
1 - 3 MINUTES
4-6 MINUTES
7 - 10 MINUTES
11 - 15 MINUTES
16 - 30 MINUTES
21 - 30 MINUTES
OVER 30 MINUTES
DON'T USE
NOT SURE
IX
11X
25X
«*>
T4X
10X
3X
ex
25
13X
23X
26X
1SX
12X
35
. 7*
1X
4X • 2X -
1SX 9X 20X SX
20X 2SX 215 32X
27X 27X 21X 3SX
12X 1SX 1BX 13X
BX 12X 14X 3X
SX 2X 2X 2X
ax ax 3x 4x
SOURCE: NYSDOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation System, April 1978.
-------
Easy to use
Crowded
Safe from strangers
Seats always available
Available 24 hrs. a day
No traffic delays
No long vehicle waits
Employees helpful
Fastest way to travel
Always on time
Come and go when I want
Frequent service to destination
Safe while waiting
Uncomfortable around fellow passengers
Pleasant surroundings while waiting
Terrifying conditions walking between
subway and destination
Rowdy people on subway when travel
Poor lighting while waiting
sera Non-Users Users
JL
67
87
25
32
84
87
56
49
71
64
59
78
49
50
29
46
64
55
_?2_
49
91
22
15
58
76
50
42
55
48
46
65
50
48
30
41
60
58
JL
80
76
58
42
71
73
53
58
78
73
68
77
51
. 53
42
55
48
51
Non-Users
JL
86
71
44
46
80
73
66
59
84
71
69
68
42
53
35
62
55
55
Users
JL
75
91
23
21
74
77
63
48
67
62
64
74
30
57
16
54
61
53
Non-Users Users
J£L-
64
92
18
21
61
77
49
46
49
44
52
72
23
58
18
62
62
55
JL
83
71
23
32
80
77
67
58
81
79
78
90
40
47
20
45
60
43
Non-Uaer*
JL_
82
58
\7
37
72
84
60
47
74 .-
INS
75
70
88
38
42
21
43
59
57
-------
143
Exhibit II.C.26
NYC Transit Authority, "A Study of Attitudes' toward the NY Subway," June 1975.
What New Yorkers Do On The Subway
• Most New Yorkers do many things on the subway. Over four out of
ten read, over two out of ten watch other people and over one out of ten talk
with friends or relatives or simply think.
• Queens residents tend to spend more time thinking (about safety) than
other travelers. More Manhattanites do nothing than residents of other
boroughs. Nearly seven out of ten Bronx residents read while over half
Brooklyn residents read and one out of three watch other people.
Main Ways Time is Passed on the Subway
Total Queens Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn
% % % % %
Read 45 31 27 69 54
Work 111 11
Sleep 6 5 2 9 9
Talk with friend/relative 16 21 5 10 21
Watch people 24 21 17 17 34
Relax/Rest 751 2 15
Plan trip/day 567 43
Read ads 10 10 4" 11 13
Look around 2 6 - 1
Think 15 22 18 16 7
. —About Safety 11 18 16 13 1
— About life/problems 331 25
— About business 1-1 11
Do nothing JL -1 2! -i -1
(Number of Respondents) (781) (196) (186) (197) (200)
-------
Exhibit II.C.27
O
o
O
Ul
ID
Of
Ul
O
2
UJ
to
l/l
450--
400--
350--
300 --
250
200
150
100
50
3/68
Dale
3/68
1/70
1/72
1/73
9/75
SCHEDULE OF FARE CHANGES
Express Bus
Subway Public Private
$.20 $1.00 $1.15
.30
.35
1.25
.50 1.50 1.50
Nolei Domenico fare went from $1.05 lo $1.25 in 11/74.
Ridenhip falloff from 1/7/74 lo 12/8/74 due lo bus
strike in the Bronx.
1/69
(One week totals plotted at 4 week intervals.)
SOURCE: KYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
Express Bus Passengers Carried per Week
-------
145
Exhibit II.C.28
Income of NYC Transit
Work Riders by Mode*
Income
Group
0-2,999
3,000-5,999
6,000-8,999
9,000-11,999
12,000-14,999
15,000-24,999
25,000 +
I Auto
Driver /Rider
0
17.1
1.5
23.0
14.4
39.2
4.8
% Subway
Rider
0
20.6
28.0
11.6
13.0
24.2
2.6
Z Bus
Rider
0
0
0
32.1
26.0
19.7
22.2
% Bus and
Subway Rider
0
25.3
14.6
0
21.7
30.9
7.6
Walk/
Other
0
22.4
11.8
24.0
37.9
0
3.8
•Columns may not add to 100.0% due to rounding
% The largest group of riders (49%) are made up of persons
earning between $3,000 and $9,000 per year. This income
group constitutes 45% of the New York City resident work-
ing force , and transit use among them is very high. For
instance, 82% of those earning $6,000-9,000 and 53% of the
$3,000-6,000 group use the subway for work every day (Table
3) commuting by subway is the cheapest and most convenient
way of getting to and from work for them. Since Manhattan
parking fees are high and parking space is extremely limited.
.S. Census, 1970.
SOURCE: Weiss & Donnelly, "Characteristics of New York State Transit
Users," 1976.
-------
146
45- % Passengers
44.
43-
42-
41
40
Exhibit II.C.29
Bi-directional peak (evening):
10.0% of 24-hour travel
One-Directional Peaking Patterns of
Urban Local Buses (Trips across 61st
Street in Manhattan-)
n H' H n M M r i
45678 9101112 12345678 91011121 2 3
noon midnight
Inbound Bui Aero* Sin StnMt
45678 91011121 2345673 91011121 234
noon midnight
Outbound Bus Acron 61st Strart
SOORCZ: pTishkarev S Zupan, Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, 1977.
-------
147
Exhibit II.C.30
HOW MUCH TIME IS THERE BETWEEN BUSES DURING THE RUSH HOUR?
(Base: Ride bus to Manhattan destination).
TOTAL ANS
nun
MAN-
HA- MAN-
TTAN BROOK MA-
IU(AL TOTAL QUEENS -LYN BRONX TTAN
163
57
19
14
24- 106
1-3 MINUTES
4-6 MINUTES
"7 - 10 MINUTES
, 11-15 MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
21 - 30 MINUTES
OVER 30 MINUTES
DON'T USE
NOT SURE
IX 2X
20X 14X
(3«) 32X
1SX 21*
• 6X 9X
3X 7X
IX 4X
11X 7X
4X SX
7X - 1X
SX 29X 13X 23X
42X SOX 13X 3SX
37X 7X 17X 17X
SX - 17X 4X
7X 13X IX
SX 4X
SX - 13X 13X
- 13X 4X
HOW MUCH TIME IS THERE BETWEEN BUSZS DURING THE NON-RUSH HOUR?
(Base: Ride bus to Manhattan destination)
TOTAL ANS
t - 3 MINUTES
4-6 MINUTES
7 - 10 MINUTES
^ tl - IS MINUTES
16-20 MINUTES
i
21 - 30 MINUTES
k OVER 30 MINUTES
DON'T USE
NOT SURE
WON
MAN-
HA-
TTAN
TOTAL TOTAL
163 57
1X 2X
2X
7X 4X
27X MX
@ 32X
18X 19X
10X 19X
3X 9X
2X 2X
MAN-
BROOK HA-
QUEENS -LYN BRONX TTAN
19 14 24 106
sx
4X
8X 8X
. 11X 7X 21X 34X
42X 36X 21 X 30X
11X 29X 21X 17%
26X - 2SX 5X
SX 21X 4X
7X - 2X
SOURCE: NYSDOT, HYers Evaluate Their Transportation Systea, April 1978.
-------
148
Exhibit II.C.31
BUS SERVICE PROBLEMS. BY STRATUM. IN PERCENTS
Large Other
Total SYC Metro Urban Rural
No bus service available 11.9 3.5 2.6 12.4 47.6
Buses don't run often enough 28.4 27.2 34.4 27.6 29.4
Cannot depend on bus schedules 12.8 18.9 13.3 7.6 2.7
There are not enough bus routes 13.4 12.2 12.1 17.8 9.0
It takes too long to go places
using the local bus 9.1 10.0 11.7 9.8 2.2
It costs too much .. 7.1 9.4 8.9 5.5 1.2
The buses are not comfortable 2.8 5.2 .6 1.0 -
A person has too many transfers
from one bus to another 4.9 7.9 2.3 2.9 1.1
There is too much crime con-
nected with bus service- 1.1 1.6 2.8 - .4
Other 8.5 4.1 10.8 15.4 6.4
• Only 3.5Z of people from New York City feel that no bus service
is available, and 13.4Z of the Stratum II residents feel that
there are not enough routes. Although bus-route coverage is
fairly comprehensive, most lines are short, feeding rapid-transit
stations; and do not provide service to the Manhattan CED from
the outlying boroughs. The feeling might also reflect the
dissatisfaction with long walks to the subway which are fairly
common for most New Yorkers.
Donnelly et al,'"Statewide Public Opinion Survey on Public Transportation," 1975
-------
149
APPENDIX C
EXHIBITS FOR
SECTION I1I.C LOCAL USER PRIORITIES
IN EVALUATING PERFORMANCE
-------
150
' Exhibit III.CJ
Satisfaction with Transit Service
Question .
How satisfied are you with the hours of available service
of:
a. local buses
Choice
No Choice
b. subways
Choice
No Choice
Satisfied
38.0%
28.0
Satisfied
57.0%
43.0
Neither
24.0*
25.0
Neither
20.0%
25.0
Dissatisfied
38.0%
47.0
Dissatisfied
33.0%
32.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT/ Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
151
Exhibit III.C.2
Satisfaction with Public Transit Service
Question
How satisfied are you with the hours of available service
of:
a. subways:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Auto Driver ' 39.0% 30.0% 31.05
Non-Auto Driver 44.0 25.0 1.0
b. local buses:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Auto Driver 24.0% 28.01 43.0%
Non-Auto Driver 30.0 27.0 43.0
SOUSCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
152
Exibit III.C.3
Suitability of Public Transit
Question
Public transportation is suitable for my non-work travel
needs.
Agree Neither Disagree
Choice(N-l,095) 56.01 10.0% 34.0%
No Choice(N-3,208) 48.0 12.0 40.0
Question
Bus and subway services in New York City are doing a good
job.
Agree Neither Disagree
Choice 36.0% 12.0% 52.0%
No Choice 22.0 11.0 77.0
Question
In general, public transportation gets me where I want to
go.
Agree Neither Disagree
Choice 83.0% 7.0% 10.0%
No Choice 77.0 11.0 12.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
153
Exhibit III.C.4
Utility of Public Transit
Question
Public transportation is suitable for my non-work travel
needs.
Agree Neither Disagree
Auto Driver 30.0% 13.05 57.0%
Non-Auto Driver 51.0 13.0' 36.0
Question
In general, public transportation gets me where I want to
go.
Agree Neither Disagree
Auto Driver 47.0% 22-. 0% 31.0%
Non-Auto Driver 53.0 11.0 36.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, 1977.
-------
154
Exhibit III.C.5
Utility of Public Transit
Question
In general, public transportation gets me where I want to
go.
Origin: Outer Boroughs
Destination Agree
Neither
Disagree
Manhattan
Outer Borougii*
Outside N.Y.C:
Origin: Manhattan
Destination
Manhattan
Outer Borough
Outside N.Y.C.
71.2*
39.3
45. 4
Apree
81.2*
78.6
68. 7
13.8%
16.1
23.9
Neither
8.6*
7.6
10.1
15.0%
24.1
30.7
Disagree
10.2*
13.8
21.2
Sample size: Manhattan, N a 3,671
Outer Borough, N * 1,851
Outside N.Y.C., N - 405
*Intraborough and intcrborough respondents were grouped
under the outer borough category.
SOURCE: NYCDCT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
155
Exhibit III.C.6
Satisfaction with Public Transit
Question
How satisfied are you with the time you have to wait during
rush hour for:
a. subway:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Males 47.0% 23.0% 30.0%
Females 40.0 27.0 33.0
b. bus:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Males '42.0% 27.0% 31.0%
Females 35.0 29.0 36.0
Question
How satisfied are you with the cost of travelling by:
a. subway and local buses:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Males 19.0% 23.0% 58.0%
Females 14.0 22.0 64.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
156
Exhibit III.C.7
Satisfaction with Modal Punctuality
Question
How satisfied are you with the opportunity of arriving
at your destination on time at rush hours when travelling
by:
a. car
Choice
No Choice
b. subway
Choice
No Choice
c. bus
Choice
No Choice
Satisfied
23.05
23.0
Satisfied
49.0%
40.0
Satisfied
33.0%
27.0
Neither
25.0%
39.0
Neither
22.0%
23.0
Neither
30.0%
29.0
Dissatisfied
52.0%
38.0
Dissatisfied
29.0%
37.0
Dissatisfied
37.0%
44.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
157
Exhibit III.C.8
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
Satisfaction with Modal Punctuality
Question
The opportunity of arriving at your destination on time
during rush hours when travelling hy car:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Destination
Manhattan
Cuter Borough
Outside N.Y.C.
by subway:
Manhattan
Outer Borough
Outside N.Y.C.
by bus:
Manhattan
Outer Borough
Outside N.Y.C.
44.01
47.0
45.0
9.0*.
9.0
8.0
40.0%
34.0
35.0
14.0%
19.0
25.0
24.05
26.0
29.0
22.01
21.0
29.0
47.05
44.0
47.0
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
46.0^
47.0
40.0
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
54.0%
53.0
42.0
-------
158
Exhibit III.C.9
Satisfaction v/ifh Travel Time
Question
How satisfied are you with the time it takes to travel during
rush hours by:
a. car
Choice
No Choice
b. subway
Choice
No Choice
c. bus
Choice
No Choice
Satisfied
13.0%
38.0
Satisfied
50.0%
36.0
Satisfied
27.0%
27.0
Neither
31.01
36.0
Neither
19.05
18.0
Neither
35.0*
22.0
Dissatisfied
66.01
36.0
Dissatisfied
31.0*.
46,0
Dissatisfied
38.0%
51.0
SOUSCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
159
Exhibit III.C.10,
Satisfaction with Modal Performance
Question
How satisfied are you with the time it takes to travel
. during rush hour?
a. by car:
Auto Driver
Non-Auto Driver
b. fay subway:
Auto Driver
Non-Auto Driver
c. by bus:
Auto Driver
Non-Auto Driver
Satisfied
27.0%
14.0
Satisfied
27.01
39.0
Satisfied
19.01
27.0
Neither
12.0%
35.0
Neither
24.01
22.0
Neither
28.01
28.0
Dissatisfied
61.01
51.0
Dissatisfied
49.0%
40.0
Dissatisfied
53.0%
45.0
SOCSCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
242
-------
160
Exhibit Ill.C.n
Question
I do not feel comfortable with the kinds of people riding
local buses.
Destination Agree Neither Disagree
Manhattan 23.0% 31.0% 44.0%
Outer Borough 27.0 30.0 43)0
SOORCS: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
161
eOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
Attitudes Toward Public Transit
Question
I would think twice about using public transportation when
going somewhere I have never been before.
Agree Neither Disagree
Males 53.0% 13.0% 29.0%
Females 57.0 16.0 27.0
Question
I do not feel comfortable with the kind of people riding
the subways.
Agree Neither Disagree
Male 56.0% 20.0% 24.0%
Females 61.0 19.0 * 20.0
-------
162
Exhibit III.C.13
Satisfaction with Transportation Costs
Question
How satisfied are you with the cost of travelling?-
Manhattan
Outer Borough
Outside N.Y.C.
by subway or buses:
Manhattan
Outer Borough
Outside N.Y.C.
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
21.0%
25.0
26.0
14.01
18.5
20.0
9.SI
11.0
6.5
18.55
1S.S
1S.O
69.5
64.0
67.5
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
67.5%
63.0
62.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
163
Exhibit III.C.14
Satisfaction with Transportation Costs
Question T ••"••
How satisfied are you with the cost of travelling?
a. by car:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Auto Driver 23.01 16.0% 61.05
Non-Auto Driver 16.0 37.0 47.0
b. by subways or buses:
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Auto Driver 16.01 27.01 57.01
Non-Auto Driver 14.0 22.0 64.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
164
Exhibit III.C.15
c. What Improvements Users Would Like To See
The percentages of responses to the various
categories were (DOT):
More rush hour buses 54%
Guaranteed seat 451
Added hours of operation during
weekdays 42%
Added hours of operations during
weekends 34%
Bus shelters 30%
Remainder of 6 categories 60%
Note: Multiple responses were possible.
-------
165
Exhibit III,C.I6
Importance of Travel Attributes
Question
Which would you consider most important to your travel
needs?
F. Modern vehicles
Destination Yes No
Manhattan 13.0% 87.0%
Outer Borough 9.5 90.5
Outside N.Y.C. 7.0 93.0
I. Cost
Destination Yes No
•a
Manhattan 45.5% 54.5%
Outer Borough 40.0 60.0
Outside N.Y.C. 45.0 55.0
J. Comfort
Destination Yes No
Manhattan 31.0% 79.0%
Outer-Borough 24.5 75.5
Outside N.Y.C. 26.0 74.0
M. Travel on an air-conditioned vehicle
Destination Yes No
Manhattan 74.0% 26.0%
Outer Borough 64.0 36.0
Outside N.Y.C 64.0 36.0
N. Be informed of causes for delay while travelling.
Destination Yes No
Manhattan 65.0% 35.0%
Outer Borough 51.0 49.0
Outside N.Y.C. 56.0 44.0
0. Access to information about routes and directions.
Destination Yes No
Manhattan 34.5% 65.5%
Outer Borough 48.0 52.0
Outside N.Y.C. 42.0 58.0
SOURCE: NVCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes, Sept. 1977.
-------
1-66
Exhibit III.C.I7
Importance of Travel Attributes
Males Females
Attribute Rank (%) Rank (I)
1. Clean vehicles 2 (53.1%) 2 (56.6%)*
2. Avoid annoyance
by other passengers 9 (23.2%) 8 (26.1%)
3. Safety from vehicle
accidents 5 (34.4%) 4 (47.2%)*
4. Travel information
availability 12 ( 7.5%) 11 ( 9.1%)
5. Safety from harm
by others 1 (60.0%) 1 (68.9%)*
6. Modern vehicles 10 (14.4%) 10 (10.9%)
7. Arriving on time 3 (51.2%) 3 (51.3-;)
8. Riding enjoyment 11 (10.5%) 12 ( 5.6%)
9. Cost 4 (44.6%) 5 (42.8%)
10. Comfort 8 (29.4%) 9 (23.2%)
11. Convenience 7 (34.6%) 6 (31.6%)
12. Travel time 5 (34.4%) 7 (26.4%)
''. .
*Chi-square analysis indicated that females put more emphasis
on the starred items.
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation :-!odes, Sept. 1977.
-------
167
Exhibit III.C.18
SOURCE: Donnelly et al, "Statewide Public Opinion Survey on Public Transportation," 197:
Regular Bus Service
The greatest need for regular bus service appears in the
less-populated sections of the State; the lower the popu-
lation density, the more strongly the need is expressed
TABLE 15
PERCENT PUBLIC TRANSIT PREFERENCE BY STRATUM
Regular bus service
Door-to-door transit
Kail rapid transit
Incer-city train service
Don't know
Total
49.1
13.8
17.7
10.0
915
NYC
31.1
20.2
30.0
5.5
13.3
Large
Me To
61.1
10.1
7.9
12.4
8.4
Other
Urban
64.1
9.6
8.1
14.2
4.1
Rural
67.5
4.1
5.1
13.9
9.4
-------
168
APPENDIX D
EXHIBITS FOR
SECTION IV.B.3 EVALUATION OF THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ACTIONS
-------
169
Exhibit IY.fl-.3J
U, "The Metropolis Speaks," August 1974.
(HOICE Subsidizing Transit
' Question and answers. How should fares on public trans-
foitation be subsidized, if .at all?
Enough to keep up with the cost of living: 3 3%
Enough to reduce them: 34%
Enough to have free transit: ' 16%
(011C all: 14%
to vote: 3%
Gallup survey. To what extent, if at all. do you think the
pernment should help in paying for fares people pay for
iiblic transportation-should the government cover the total
to, part of the fare, or do you think it should cover none of
tee farss?-
Total:
PlTC:
None:
Don't know:
12%
42%
38%
7%
Comparable CHOICES vote:
Tool:
Part:
None:
Don't know:
16%
67%
14%
3%
Background information. In recent years, a decline in
Bnsit ridership has always followed a rise ir. fares— so that to
maintain existing ridership, it seems necessary to keep fares
from rising as fast as they have been, Le., more than three
times faster than the cost of living. That rise is due to the
fact that productivity can only increase a limited amount-at
least two men are needed on subways, one man on buses. So
no relief is in sight-as productivity rises in goods production,
the relative cost of services like transit cannot help but rise.
And, if the past is indicative, that means a steady decline in
passengers and more autos on the roads. We might prefer a
government subsidy to slow the fare rise and ridership de-
cline.
Against subsidies is the argument that when the price of
some good is lower than its cost, people are encouraged to use
it more than it is really worth to mem. Also, transit sub-
sidies are an inefficient way to help the poor since the aver-
age transit rider even in New York City has a 510,000 in-
come and the commuter railroad rider even higher.
Voter differences. All categories had substantial majori-
ties for transit subsidies. Even those living in exurbia favor-
ed subsidies 78-18.
Education-income: Support for subsidies rose slightly
with education (77% of adults without high school diplomas
to 87% with graduate degrees). Abstracting education, those
with incomes below SI 3,000 xvere most favorable, those with
incomes between 513,000 and 535,000 least favorable.
Participation: Those who only voted favored subsidies 76-
18; those who watched, read and discussed 92-6.
-------
170
Exhibit IV.B.3.2
RPA, "The Metropolis Speaks," August 1974.
CHOICE More. Public Transportation?
Question and answers. Should public policy in the New
York-New Jersey-Connecticut Region encourage more reli-
ance on public transportation?
* Favor: 89% Oppose: 6% No opinion: 5%
Background information. The automobile has allowed us
to spread out recent development; it is more convenient and
faster than other forms of travel in the Region, except to
large downtowns during rush hour. However, its air pollut-
ing characteristics have not been solved; it uses large amounts
of energy and induces people to travel more than they other-
wise would. It uses a great amount of space, making easy in-
terchange more difficult throughout the day. Our reliance
on the auto limits opportunities for those who cannot drive,
and it is the most dangerous mode of travel. More reliance
on the public transportation would require more compact
organization of the Region, both neighborhoods and work
places.
Voter differences. All voter categories provided large ma-
jorities.
Education-income: Support increased a small amount
with higher income and more education.
Participation: Those who only voted favored the idea 81-
8; those who watched, read and discussed voted 93-4. Dis-
cussion slightly decreased support.
-------
171
Exhibit TV..BL.3.3
HOW LIKELY IS IT .THAT YOU WOULD NOT GO BY CAR INTO y^
IP THE CRITICISMS OF THE BUS AND SUBWAY SYSTEM WERE TAKEN CARS OP BY
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES?
(Base: Tjrayel, by autoaobile to Manhattan destination)
TOTAL
TOTAL ANS .122
DEFINITELY WOULD NOT *t>-
SO BY CAR
PSCSA3LY WOULD NOT 9«
GO SY CAR
OS MIGHT NOT 18%
GO BY CAH
PPOBA8LY WOULD GO 255
8Y CAR
DEFINITELY WOULD GO 34S
BY CAR
NOT SURE 3*
SOURCE: NYSDOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation System, April 1978.
-------
172
Exh1bi-t IV.BJ-.4
IF THE FARES ON THE BUS AND SUBWAY SYSTEM WERE'CUT IN HALF,
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT YOU WOULD HOT GO 3Y CAR INTO MANHATTAN
(Base: Travel by automobile Co Manhattan destination)
. TOTAL
TOTAL MS . 94
DEFINITELY WOULD NOT 2X
GO 8Y CAR
PRC3A8LY WOULD NOT 55
GO BY CA3
MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT 2255
GO 8Y CAR
PR03A3LY VCULO GO 353
3Y CAR
WOULD GO 30%
3Y CAR
NOT SURE 2X
SOURCE: NYSDOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation System, April 1978.
-------
173
Exhibit IV.B.3.5
Relation of Lower Transit Fare to Ridership
Question
I would make more use of the buses and subways if the
fare went down.
Agree Neither Disagree
Auto Driver 33.0% 35.OS 32.0%
Non-Auto Driver 52.0 29.0 19.0
SOURCE: NYCDOT, Better Integration of Transportation Modes/ Sept. 1977.
-------
174
. Exhibit IV.B.3.6
TOU l£ BOflt LIKELY TO USC BUSES AMD SlHWATS IF PARES WERE REDUCED TO $.23?
U2SDOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation System (Harris Survey), April 1978.
.« MEANS Of -•
•~ TRAVEL ~«
Van MASS
CAR THAN
AUTO POOL -SIT
INS
WIX
IIICM 01 PRESENCE
Kl>C
TOTAL
923
375
6SX
1%
MM
HAM-
MA-
TTAM
TOTAL QUEENS
722
262
695
»
237
26S
71X
4X
BROOK
-LTM
309
17X
74%
St
BRONX
162
43X
565
tx
MAN-
HA-
TTAN
201
305
S3X
17X
tmmmn
UNOR
S7M
177
325
5SS
tax
— INCOME — — •
S7M- $15»- J35M
SI4, S24, 4
999 999 OVER
349
2BX
64%
8%
244
27%
685
55
86
1SX
795
6%
ISO
3 899
19% 38% 28%
75% 63% 64%
6% - 9%
-------
175
Exhibit IV.B.3.7
TOO FAVOR A PROPOSAL VM£»E THE PRESENT $.50 FARE WOULD 6E REDUCED TO $.25 ANO, AT THE
SAME TIME. HAVC P6QPtE PAT AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF TAX?
•*
Bi NYSDOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation System (Harris Survey), April 1978.
•- MEANS OF -•
•— TRAVEL —
Van MASS
CAR TPAN
AUTO POOL -SIT
TOTAL
923
32*
»6X
11*
NQN
MAN-
HA-
TTAN
TOTAL QUEENS
722 257
26*
62*
12*
29*
57*
14*
BROOK
-LTN
303
25*
65*
10*
. •.•
BRONX
162
25*
63*
12*
w
MAN-
HA-
TTAN
201
S3*
37*
10*
•~_.~.
-
UNOR
$7M
177
42X
40X
16X
- INC
$7M-
$14,
999
349
36X
54X
11X
:o« —
$15«-
S24,
999
244
27X
64X
9X
••••• <
S2SM
«
OVER
86
22X
69X
9X
150
8 699
22X - 34X
72* 63* 54X
6X 38X 12X
-------
176
Exhibit IV.B.3.8
DISAPPROVE OF MASS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE CUTS
(Base: Disapprove of service cuts)
Still Disapprove
If Fares
Disapprove Must Be Raised
1. Less frequent bus and subway
service during rush hour 87 74
2. Less frequent bus and subway
service during non-rush hour
periods 63 50
3. Shortening subway trains
during off peak hours 37 29
4. Closing some subway -stations
late at night 56 46
5. Elimination of all subway
service late at night 78 65
6. Elimination of add-a-ride
fares 59 43
7. Elimination of duplicate
service that is bus/subway
lines which run next to
each other 41 31
SOOBC3: NYSDOT, NYers Evaluate Their Transportation System (Harris Survey) , April 1978.
-------
177
REFERENCES
1. Accountants for the Public Interest Inc., A Review of the Preliminary
New York City Transit Authority Four-Year Financial Plan for 1980-1983-
New York, N.Y., June 18, 1979.
2. Accountants for the Public Interest Inc., Comments on Fare Stability
As Part of the New York State Air Quality Implementation Plan, The
Moynihan/Holtzman Amendment Submission: Transit Improvements in the
New York City Metropolitan Area; New York, N.Y. 1979
3. Alter, C.H. "Management Evaluation and Performance Indicators and Measures,
Interim Report 11", The Mary!and-National Capital Park and Planning
Commission, March 1978.
4. Chicago Transit Authority Annual Report, 1977.
5. Chicago Transit Authority Financial Statement, 1977, 1978.
6. City of New York, New York City Transit Authority, and Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, "Accelerated Transit
Program; Application Under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
for Capital Improvements to Surface and Rapid Transit Facilities of
the New York City Transit System, Fiscal Years 1979 through 1984."
Public Hearing: December 18, 1978.
7. City of New York, New York City Transit Authority, and Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, "Application of the City
of New York and the New York City Transit Authority for a Mass Trans-
portation Facilities Grant Under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964 as Amended, for Capital Improvements to the New York City Transit
System. Urban Initiatives Program, Joint Development Projects,"
Public Hearing: March 12, 1979.
8. City of New York, New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, "Application Under the
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 for a Capital Improvement Grant.
New York City Transit System, Identifying Projects for Fiscal Year
1980 (second year of Three Year Program) and Additional Projects for
Fiscal Year 1979 (first year of Three Year Program)", Public Hearing;
August 30, 1979.
9. City of New York, Office of Management_and_Budgeti- :f;Executi:Ve_3udget-
Fiscal Year 1980, Expense, Revenue, Capital".
10. City of New York, Office of Management and Budget, "Executive Budget-
Fiscal Year 1980, Message of the Mayor," April 26, 1979.
-------
178
11. Costle, D.M., U.S. Environment Protection Agency, letter to the
Honorable Hugh L. Carey. Governor of New York, dated June 20, 1978.
12. Department of City Planning (City of New York), "A New Direction in
Transit", NYC-DCP-78-28, December, 1978. erection in
13. Donnelly, Elene P., David L. Weiss et al., Statewide Public Ooinion
Survey on Public Transportation: Technical Report, Al ny^NY
NYSDOT mimeographed, June 1975.
14. Fielding. fi.J.. Glauthier, R.E., and Lave, C.A., (1977), "Development
of Performance Indicators for Transit", Report No. UMTA-CA-11-0014-4,
December 1977.
15. Kaiser Engineers, "Draft Milestone-6 Report: Safety and Security -
Dade County Transit Improvement Program", March 1975.
16. Kurzuril, C.G., et al., "Noise Assessment and Abatement in Rapid Transit
Systems, Report on the MBTA Pilot Study", Report No. UMTA-MA-06-0025-74-8,
September 1974.
17- Mass Transit. "Accidents: First Statistics", No. 9, Vol. V, September 1978.
18. McShane, W.R. and Slutsky, S., "Noise in the New York City Transit System:
Abatement Methodology and Cost^Esttmate'-',Report No. UMTA-NY-11-0010-2,
October 1975.
19. New York City Planning Commission, "Capital Needs and Priorities for the
City of New York", 1979.
20. New York City Transit Authority, A Study of Attitudes Toward the New York
Subway (Survey by Market Facts, Inc.), New York:mimeographed, June 1975.
21. New York City Department of Transportation, Better Integration of
Transportation Modes Project: A Technical Study; Project Final' Report,
N.Y.: NYCDOT, September 1977.
22. New York City Transit Authority, "Rapid Transit Public Incidents - Annual
Report", Fiscal Year 1974-1975, Safety Department, 1975.
23. New York State Department of Transportation, New Yorkers Evaluate Their
Transportation System, A Survey of Manhattan-Bound New Yorkers.
(Survey by Louis Harris & Assocs., Inc.), April 1978.
24. New York State, "New York State Air Quality Implementation Plan, The
Moynihan-Holtzman Submittal: Mass Transportation Improvements in the
New York City Metropolitan Area", New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and Department of Transportation, May 1979.
25. Ornati, Oscar A., Transportation Needs of the Poor, A Case Study of New
York City. New York: Praeger, 1969.
26. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, "Operating Guidelines and
Standards for the Mass Transportation Assistance Program",
January 1973.
-------
179
27. Public Technology, Inc., "Proceeding of the First National Conference
for Transit Performance", Report No. UMTA-DC-06-0184-77-1, September 1977.
28. Quante, Wolfgang, The Exodus of Corporate Headquarters from New York City,
New York: Praeger, 1976.
29. Regional Plan Association, The Office Industry: Patterns of Growth and
Locations, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.
30. Sloan, T., "Managing SEPTA Strategically", Draft Final Report, South-
eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, 1979.
31. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, City Transit
Di vis ion— Statement of Income, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979.
32. "The Metropolis Speaks; A Report to the New York Region on Its Mass
Media Town Meetings, CHOICES FOR '76", Regional Plan News 95:
August 1974.
33. The Region's Agenda, "National Transportation Policy and Regional Needs",
Regional Plan Association, Vol. VII, No. 6, March 1978.
34. Thrasher and Schnell, "Scope of Crime and Vandalism on Urban Transit
Systems", Transportation Research Board, 1974.
35. Transit Record, Monthly Report of Operation — New York City Transit
System No. 8, 1975, No. 8, 1976.
36. Untitled UMTA Report containing Transit Operator's Statistical Summaries
of Ridership, Revenue, and Capital and Operating Assistance.
37. Weiss, David L., and Elene P. Donnelly, Characteristics of New York State
Transit Users, Albany, NY: NYSDOT, 1976.
38. Weiss, D.L., D.T. Hargen and G.S. Cohen, "Equity in New York State
Transit Fares", New York State Department of Transportation, October 1975.
-------
180
I. M*OMT MO
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(fli-ar md Mimir/idm on the nivfn- Ar/urr rump/ Ungl
..TITHAMO«U«TITLI VdUdul Uf th"6
Implementation Plan Revision Submitted by
New York State in Fulfillment of the Moynihan-
'
3. RtCI'tf NT S ACCESSION MO.
*. RtfOMT QATf
September 1979
*. fkRFORMING ORGANIZATION COOC
Alain L. Kornhauser & Associates
•. MRFORMIMG ORGANIZATION RIPOI1T MO.
(. FCMFQKMINO ORGANIZATION NAMt AND AOORtSS
Alain 1. Kornhauser & Associates
24 Montadale Circle
Princeton, New Jersey 03540
10 PROGRAM ILCMftNT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-MY-0001
11. SPONSORING ACINCT NAME ANO AOOMISS
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York
USEPA - Region II
Planning & Mgt. Div.,
Facilities & Admin.
Rranrh
13. TY*t Of «f POMT ANO flKlOO COVtMf B
Final
14. SPONSORING AGf MCT COOl
10007
902/00
LIMf NTART NOTCS
The objective of this study is to assist the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in reviewing and evaluating the Submission by the State
of [Jew York in response to the Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment of the 1977
Clean Air Act. The Moynihan-Holtzman Amendment specifies that any alter-
native to bridge tolls in the State Implementation Plan must include com-
prehensive plans to "establish, expand, or improve public transportation
measures to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously as practicable!
The submission is critically examined from various viewpoints -
philosophical, technical, and sociological. A frame of reference for the
evaluation was constructed based on four pertinent areas: industry-wide
transit performance measures and standards, local public perceptions and
priorities, local transit operator and planning agencies' projects and
budgets, and comparable metropolitan transit system performance and budget
data.
«§» MOROS ANO OOCUMtNT ANALT1IS
DHCNirfONS
Transit improvements, performance
measures and standards, budget and
cost analysis, public perception of
transit
lOCMTIf ItRS/O'tN I MOID Tf RMS
i. COSATi I irM/tiroup
». DISTRIBUTION STATtM*MT
1« SICUR'TT CLASS
UHCLASSIFIED
JO
CLASS (T*« r*t*l
PRICl
CPA fmtm
------- |