As part of the rescue package designed to put off the collapse of our transit system for five years, the State of New York proposes the creation of a single regional bus authority for the entire MTA region. The proposal would supposedly create operating efficiencies, by merging administrative functions, and improve coordination, by allowing bus routes to run between suburban and New York City counties, if that is where the demand is. What I suspect, however, is that merging the bus systems is just an excuse to combine the lower cost city routes with higher cost suburban routes, so the former could be used to subsidize the latter. And the geographic area covered by such an agency would simply be too big to allow hands on management by its top officials, so any efficiencies would be lost by layers of management.
Consider than in 2006 the average ride on a New York City transit bus cost New York City transit $2.10, according to the National Transit Database. That cost was $3.40 for Long Island Bus, $3.60 for Westchester’s Bee Line, and $3.40 for buses subsidized by New York City — not because there was a big difference in what each service cost to operate the bus per hour, but because of how many people tended to be on it.
The pension systems of the suburban systems are also more under-funded, and their unions and suburban taxpayers would love to merge things together so New York City residents could help pay.
Once all the services were merged, one could imagine Dean Skelos demanding that Rockville Center bus routes, with an average of three riders per bus, get increased service, with resources redistributed from Brooklyn routes which today have standees but in the future could end up crush loaded. After all, there would be no way for outsiders to examine the difference in cost efficiency once it is all merged. Just try to get data on the cost per ride for different bus and subway routes at New York City Transit. They don’t compile it, and don’t want to know.
Moreover, because all the future payroll tax and toll revenues will be borrowed against, with the money gone in just five years but the taxes and tolls ongoing, even if the state legislature prevents a collapse today the MTA would face an even worse “doomsday” in 2014. That’s not too far away for those who plan to keep living here. The only hope we have of having any transit system at all post collapse is if part of the transit system can cover its costs. The only part of it with a chance is the subway, which cost $1.40 per ride in 2006. But the state legislation, which the State Senate posted today, would forbid the MTA from changing the free transfer policies. That means half the fare revenues from those beyond walking distance from the subway would accrue to the bus authority, not the subway.
And as for reverse commuters from the city to the suburbs, I can tell you that suburban jurisdictions believe the city should be paying to subsidize buses to bring out the labor that suburbanites need but do not want living among them.
All this may be paranoia, based on the fact that just about EVERY SINGLE DECISION made by the state for 15 years has been worse for New York City, for the future, or for New York City’s future. But even if the financial issues ceased to exist, ask yourself this question: where would the top officials of the regional bus authority have their offices, and how often would the visit the bus depots and travel the routes for a system that could eventually stretch from Poughkeepsie to Montauk? That sounds like extra layers of management to me. At the very least there ought to be separate bus authorities for geographic Long Island, including Brooklyn and Queens, and the Hudson Valley, including Manhattan. (I never thought merging MetroNorth and The Long Island Railroad made sense, for that reason, either).
We already have an MTA, and lots of administrative functions can be centralized there if coordination is the goal. The MTA could also be given the power to dictate bus routes. And it could buy all the buses, to get economies of scale — bus purchases tend to be federally funded anyway. But with regard to what costs what and who subsidizes who, I’m in favor of more transparency rather than less. Because it seems to me that those who complain the most often have the least to complain about.