sign in sign up
<<
Home , PlaNYC, Select Bus Service

Policy Options Brief

To: Councilman Ydanis A. Rodriguez, Chairperson of the City Council Committee on Transportation; Daryl C. Irick, Acting President of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority From: Kyle Rectenwald and Paul Evans Subject: Detrimental Effects of Limited Transport Access on Low-Income New Yorkers Date: March 23, 2017

Problem: The New Yorkers Who Need Access to Transit the Most Have it the Least ’s low-income communities are being severely underserved by the city’s public transportation system. Around 58% of the city’s poorest residents, more than any other income group, rely on the subway and bus systems for transportation (Bendix). Yet for a variety of reasons to be outlined, these residents are being increasingly isolated from access to transit and presented with limited mobility options. Marginalization from the city’s transport network means limited access to the opportunities provided by a vibrant city like New York. This inequitable situation has real, detrimental effects on people’s lives. For one young man, simply getting from his home in West to attend college in requires an hour or more walk every day (Stolper and Rankin 4). For many residents, lack of transport means they are unable to even pick children up from childcare, go grocery shopping, or access basic, fundamental services like hospitals and schools.

For the city’s low-income population, limited access to transport is a key factor locking them into a spiral of poverty. As Councilmember David Greenfield recently said, “You can’t get out of poverty if you can’t get to your job” (Foley). Employment options, often clustered in higher- income and transport-rich neighborhoods, are essentially unavailable to residents who have limited means to get to work. This inaccessibility naturally results in higher unemployment (Andersson). In neighborhoods where more than a quarter of residents have no commuting options except personal vehicles, the unemployment rate is 12.6%—more than double the city average (Kaufman 29).

Limited access to public transport has other negative externalities. As part of the PlaNYC update launched in 2011, Mayor Bloomberg announced several initiatives with the goal of ensuring that New York City was a livable city in the year 2030 (PlaNYC 6). Specifically, PlaNYC identified three main challenges to be addressed: the environment, growth, and aging infrastructure (PlaNYC 4). The successful implementation of improvements to the mass transit system will help to address these goals. Using public transportation reduces the carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions and relieves urban traffic congestion (APTA 5-6). Providing transportation options to more communities means less reliance on personal vehicles.

There are three notable causes of limited transport accessibility in low-income areas. First, the New York transit network currently has too limited a reach to provide equitable service city- wide. As the rental market continues to skyrocket, displaced lower-income residents are increasingly being pushed to the outer boroughs, away from the transit system that was designed with as its nexus. With outer borough populations rising, “transportation deserts”— areas where transit riders face hour-plus commutes, multiple transfers, or multiple fares—are negatively affecting a greater and greater portion of the population. Residents in these subway

1 deserts are disproportionately poor: the Pratt Center for Community Development says that of the 750,000 New Yorkers with work commutes over an hour, almost two-thirds have family incomes under $35,000 (Simons).

The problem of transportation deserts is exacerbated by inadequate bus service. Bus routes are often fragmentary and infrequent. Local bus service, stopping nearly every block, is by nature slow. These factors mean that even when buses are available to low-income residents, they often lead to lengthy and inefficient commutes. In addition, bus routes only exist intra-borough, forcing multiple transfers for many commuters. The city has been reluctant to do a wholesale reassessment of bus service routes and needs and so has yet to implement any substantial reforms or major expansions of Select Bus Services.

Second, new bus services, when implemented, must be of a high-quality and integrated with existing community needs. In 2011, in partnership with Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority implemented the City’s version of Bus Transit (BRT), an internationally known model for improving bus travel. The City program, known as (SBS) was piloted on five high ridership lines (PlaNYC, p. 83). The biggest problems with the Select Bus Service have stemmed from a mismatch of the new service protocols with the riders’ established bus travel culture. The program must overcome obstacles that include adjustment periods for neighborhood usage.

Several specific issues include the sidewalk fare collection, which invites fraud and remains confusing for some riders because fares for regular service are still collected on board. Another problem stems from the stops chosen to make up the SBS routes. The SBS 44, piloted in , serves as an excellent example for evaluation of route issues. The bus serves the very busy corridor along in Brooklyn. The SBS 44 bus now makes even fewer stops on its route, a change that comes at the expense of riders along New York Avenue. Those residents are now only served by the local bus. Riders who used to catch the B44 Limited on New York Avenue are faced with at least a two-block walk to Rogers Avenue to catch the SBS 44.

One of the benefits the SBS bus system proposed to senior citizens was the ability to travel greater distances quickly while avoiding subway stairs (PlaNYC, p.82). This route change and others like it have eliminated that benefit. Similar route changes have occurred in other boroughs, where riders have also complained about the long distances between SBS bus stops and poorly planned or non-existent transfers (Harnick). While there may be a time savings for those who ride from terminus to terminus, the ride is less advantageous for those making shorter trips or who require mid-route transfers.

Finally, rapidly increasing MetroCard prices have become prohibitive for many working class New Yorkers. While the current $2.75 single-ride fare seems reasonable for a 24-hour transit system, these fares can account for more than 10% of low-income workers’ family budgets (Bendix). In some cases, this requires families to have to decide month-to-month whether to pay rent or use the subway. Nearly a quarter of low-income workers can’t afford a MetroCard at all (Stolper and Rankin 10). In addition, many of the benefits and subsidies available to alleviate the

2 costs of transit simply don’t extend to the city’s poor. Perks like pre-tax commuter benefits are unlikely to be offered by part-time and low-wage employers.

Policy Options to Address Transport Access 1. Bus Network and Route Expansion In order to address the issue of transit deserts and the lack of rapid bus routes in outer boroughs, the city could reassess and expand local bus service and extend SBS systems. A great case study of the effect transit deserts can have on city residents, and the potential for bus-based solutions, is the looming L train shut down scheduled for 15 months beginning in April 2019. The shutdown will affect hundreds of thousands of people; there are up to 300,000 daily L train trips through the Canarsie tunnel connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan (Fried).

During the shutdown, Brooklyn residents that rely on the L to commute to work or school every day will suddenly find themselves in a transit desert. This service disruption will have a serious effect on low-income communities. Recent studies show that nearly 20,000 impoverished households live closer to the L than any other train line (Chiwaya). Alternative services must be provided.

Some of the proposals for transit substitutes during the shutdown of the L train illustrate applicable and scaleable solutions to addressing transit deserts throughout the city. First, creating dedicated-lane SBS routes throughout the effected region would allow residents to travel the lengthy distances of subway routes in nearly the same amount of time. In this scenario, dedicated lanes are essential in order to avoid exacerbating rush hour traffic and severely lengthened commute times.

The location of these routes is crucial to ensuring sure low-income communities are not disproportionately affected by the shutdown. As evidenced in the concept route below (see Figure I), rapid bus routes stretched into previously underserved areas and combined with improvements to existing local bus routes are flexible, cover more area than the L does, and can efficiently move large numbers of residents (RPA).

Source: Streetsblog

3 Importantly, new Select Bus Services should be integrated with existing bus service to help provide a transportation alternative and increased access. To address the inconvenience of bus stops or routes lost with the creation of SBS bus service, some former service could be partially restored on those routes currently served by SBS service. This will eliminate the added distance residents must walk to the new SBS bus stops. For example, B44 Limited service could be restored northbound along New York Avenue. The Limited buses would then make local stops after . In addition, all B44 buses will have Plaza as the last stop. This change would also eliminate the awkward requirement for local bus riders to transfer to the SBS 44 for its last four local stops to access the end of the line for transfers.

2. Interborough Bus Routes Importantly, new SBS routes should be direct links to Manhattan. These direct links are impossible without allowing routes to cross bridges into other boroughs. Just as the proposals for the L train shutdown would create a dedicated busway that connects eastern Brooklyn neighborhoods directly to Manhattan over the Williamsburg Bridge (see image below), routes could be extended inter-borough throughout the city (Fried). The results would reduce or eliminate multiple transfers and fares for many commuters and improve accessibility to employment and services.

Source: RPA

The long distance nature of SBS service allows for more routes to cross city bridges into other boroughs. Although the SBS connects to LaGuardia Airport (mta.info) most interborough SBS routes transfer to a subway at its terminus. Passengers are then subject to a long ride to their final destination. While these are valuable connections to subway service, the system should also connect outer-borough neighborhoods with Manhattan destinations closer to the center of the City’s business and cultural districts. In addition, these river crossings will provide a valuable contingency to increasing service disruptions or power outages that prevent subway egress from Manhattan.

4

For example, an extension of SBS 44 over the Williamsburg Bridge, will allow for a Manhattan connection with the F, J and Z trains at Delancey and Essex Streets. Renewed housing development in this Lower community may provide future construction opportunities to accommodate this new transportation amenity. Because it would not be a terminal stop, this extended SBS 44 route would leave vacated berths available at the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza bus terminal for the increased number of northbound Local B44 buses. The combined bus service from the Local, Limited and SBS buses will reduce crowding conditions on all B44 bus lines.

3. Reducing New Route Construction Costs In order to expand transit access as widely as possible, the exorbitant costs of implementing new routes should be evaluated and decreased. The cost of the SBS 44 corridor was $28 million (DOT 12-74). With a total of 28 planned stops (NYCDOT), the average cost of this service was roughly $1 million per stop. Many stops along the corridor received elaborate sidewalk improvements, including bus bulbs, bus pads, fare machines, shelters and landscaping. Some streets were repaved and all streets received painted bus lanes (NYCDOT). In contrast, the SBS 44 stop located at the northbound stop of Bedford and Gates Avenues, added to the route after much community protest and not included in the calculation above, was outfitted only with payment kiosks and signage. There were no bus bulbs and only superficial sidewalk improvements, if any.

The addition of this stop indicates that future SBS stops may be installed over a shorter time frame, at a much reduced construction cost, while still meeting community needs. This simplified construction will allow for greater flexibility in the placement of SBS stops. Similarly, adding or removing stops can be expedited. The absence of bus bulbs means SBS stops can retain any existing bus stop footprint and displace a minimum of parking spaces.

4. Bus Service Improvements To ensure accessibility for all users, bus service should be as clear and user-friendly as possible. Transit services that are easy to understand are more likely to be utilized and smooth operations decrease travel times and overcrowding.

First, the SBS bus fare payment process could be streamlined. SBS sidewalk kiosks that issue fare receipts could be replaced with the more familiar MetroCard vending machines, which have been in use in the New York City subways since 1999 (Williams). As in the subways, these MetroCard machines would allow the same pre-boarding payment opportunity provided by the current Select Bus Service kiosks but will eliminate the paper receipts that may illegally be shared with fare beaters. This change will provide the added benefits of allowing passengers to purchase and add money or time to their MetroCards, in addition to paying their bus fare.

Buses could also be modified to place a fare collection box at each doorway, with the removal of one set of seats near the middle and back doorways. Although some seating will be lost, this modification will retain the benefit of multiple entranceways to speed bus entry and exit. Future buses could be purchased featuring this design modification rather than being retrofitted. This

5 change in prepayment will eliminate last minute fare purchases and boarding delays due to passenger speculation as to whether the SBS or Local bus will arrive first at the bus stop. Passengers would now board the first arriving bus of their choice free of this concern. Upon boarding an SBS bus, passengers would swipe their MetroCards at any of three fare boxes. Cash will still not be accepted on SBS buses. All SBS transfers will continue to be issued electronically via the MetroCard. Cost of the fare box retrofit is roughly $31,800 per bus (Retzlaff).

Mitigating fare beating through the deployment of Eagle Teams of Special Officers represents a sizeable financial commitment to this effort. There are currently more than 60 officers dedicated to this task (Metro). Fare payment could continue to be monitored by smaller teams of two Special Officers who will be stationed at SBS bus stops to offer travel guidance, or who will periodically ride buses to ensure fare payment rather than delay buses to check receipts. Although the presence of Eagle Teams has previously reduced vandalism by 54% (MTA 5-18) the effectiveness of a larger number of small teams and the elimination of ticket sharing must be evaluated for efficacy. The Eagle Teams have issued 39,000 summonses for fare beating and other offenses since their inception (MTA 5-18).

5. Discount Transit Plan for Low-Income Residents As outlined above, whether access to transit is hindered by availability and service quality or not, cost is still a prohibitive factor for many low-income families across the city. No New Yorker should be forced to choose between transit and basic needs like housing and education. To properly address the issue of affordability, the Riders Alliance—a grassroots, public transit advocacy group—Fair Fares proposal should be implemented (Riders Alliance).

Under the Fair Fares plan, the New York City budget would include funding to cover the cost of half-price MetroCards for residents aged 18 to 64 who live in households at or below the poverty level (Riders Alliance and Coalition). According to the recent report The Transit Affordability Crisis, 800,000 New Yorkers would be eligible for reduced fares should this policy option be enacted. Fair Fares would save each family up to $700 in savings on transit costs every year— money that can be put towards education, necessities, or invested in the community (Stolper and Rankin).

The investment amount it would take to fund this policy option is reasonable. The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) estimates that the reduced-fare program would cost around $80 million for the first year and $200 million in lost fare revenue annually thereafter (Stolper and Rankin). In proportion to the total city budget—which hovers near $80 billion—and the investment cost of other city services, this is a small price to pay to provide an essential service to some of the city’s most marginalized communities. If the mayor is unwilling to find this money in the city budget, the funds could alternatively be raised through an increase in the gas tax or an extension of the current millionaire’s tax (Stolper and Rankin).

The Fair Fares proposal is not a radical or untested idea. For years, half-price fares have been available to senior citizens and some disabled residents without taking income level into account. Students also receive unlimited MetroCards every term until they graduate high school. Furthermore, many New Yorkers who work full time are offered pre-tax benefits to purchase

6 MetroCards, effectively reducing their fares. “We’re already giving tax breaks and discounts to lots of groups. Why not do it for those who are least able to afford [transportation]?” asks Nancy Rankin, a co-author of The Transit Affordability Crisis (CityLab). Cities such as San Francisco, Charleston, Madison, Seattle, and London have already successfully implemented similar programs for low-income and unemployed riders (Stolper and Rankin 25).

Proposals to provide low-income New Yorkers with reduced fare transit enjoy broad public support. According to a recent poll, 73% of residents support the discounted fares (Riders Alliance). Increasingly, city government officials are lending their support as well. As of October 2016, a majority of City Council members publicly supported the Fair Fares proposal, with support continuing to build since (Riders Alliance). As recently as February, the Committee on Transportation, of which you serve as chair, held hearings which were dominated by discussion and support for the program (Foley). Much of this public and official support is due to movement- and coalition-building efforts by the Riders Alliance.

Conclusion As you can see, the city faces several mass transportation challenges. New York’s poorest residents, already underserved and marginalized from city services, have increasingly limited access to efficient and low-cost transportation. This circumstance denies our working poor access to basic services and opportunities to break the cycle of poverty. Barriers face poor communities at every turn, from insufficient transit networks, to inadequate bus service, to preventative pricing. All commuting New Yorkers deserve a safe, efficient, and affordable mode of transportation. Creative modifications in combination with adequate and responsible funding will help address these needs for the benefit of all riders.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. We are local community residents who look forward to working with you to explore policy solutions to the issue at hand.

7 Works Cited

American Public Transportation Association (APTA). 2015 Public Transportation Fact Book. Rep. 66th ed. Washington, D.C. 2015. Print.

Andersson, Fredrik, John C. Haltiwanger, Mark J. Kutzbach, Henry O. Pollakowski, and Daniel H. Weinberg. Job Displacement and The Duration Of Joblessness: The Role of Spatial Mismatch, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Rep. The National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014. 19 Feb. 2017.

Bendix, Aria. "The Working Poor Can't Afford New York City Transit." CityLab. The Atlantic, 13 Apr. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Chiwaya, Nigel. "These Maps Show How L Train Shutdown Would Affect Brooklyn." DNAinfo New York. N.p., 27 Jan. 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

The City of New York, Office of the Mayor. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. New York, NY. 2007.

"Fight for #FairFares." Riders Alliance. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

Foley, Luke. "'Fair Fares' Proposal Dominates Transportation Hearing." Gotham Gazette. N.p., 14 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Fried, Ben. "Less Service on the L Train? Wring More Efficiency Out of the Streets." Streetsblog New York City. 07 Sept. 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

Harnick, M., & Noy, J. “More Complaints About 'Select Bus’”. Norwood News. 4 Sept. 2008. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Kaufman, Sarah M., Mitchell L. Moss, Jorge Hernandez, and Justin Tyndall. Mobility, Economic Opportunity and New York City Neighborhoods. Rep. NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation, Nov. 2015. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

"New York Needs #FairFares." Letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio. 19 Oct. 2016. Riders Alliance. Riders Alliance and a Coalition of Organizations and Officials. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

New York City Department of Transportation. “NYC DOT Awarded $28 Million Federal Grant For Expansion Of Select Bus Service Through The Heart Of Brooklyn From Williamsburg To Sheepshead Bay”. NYCDOT. 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

“N.Y. MTA increasing bus patrols to catch fare evaders." Bus - Metro Magazine. N.p., 24 July 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Regional Plan Association (RPA) & Riders Alliance. Fixing the L Train and Managing the Shutdown: A Community Consensus Proposal. Rep., Nov. 2016. Web.

8

Retzlaff, S. “Request for council action, change order # 2- electronic fare box contract/spx Genfare”. 2015. Unpublished manuscript.

Simons, Dani. "Transit Deserts Leave New Yorkers Thirsting for Access to Jobs." Streetsblog New York City. 23 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Stolper, Harold, and Nancy Rankin. The Transit Affordability Crisis. Rep. Community Service Society of New York, Apr. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Williams, M. “MetroCard Machines' Subway Debut”. New York Times. 26 Jan. 1999. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

9