The New Vision for MTA:An Interview with Elliot“Lee” Sander

By Rachel Weinberger

From Megalopolis toMegamodal: The Future ofTransportation in theNortheast Corridor

By Allison L. C. de Cerreño

Programmed Transit Fares:Keeping Up VersusCatching Up

By Linda Spock

Long Island East End’sOdyssey TowardSustainability

By Gerry Bogacz

Seoul Bus Service Reforms By Paul Noumba Um, Gyeng Chul Kim and Patchareporn Talvanna

New Director’s AdvisoryBoard Meets for the FirstTime

Letter from the Editor

Once again we produce this editionof the Journal as we enjoy the col-ors of the Fall and ponder the com-ing of another Winter (it is difficultto discuss the baseball post seasonas we have in the past after theMets’ incredible collapse). We canreflect on an unprecedented yearfor transportation in New York City— the rolling out of Mayor MichaelBloomberg’s PlaNYC and Federalcommitments for the East SideAccess and Second Avenue Subways.However, some important businessstill needs to be addressed —notably, the proposed fare increasesfor closing the MetropolitanTransportation Authority’s (MTA’s)financial gap.

These are exciting times for the New York Metropolitan Region’s public transportation agency,the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). After many years of planning, the agency hasbegun constructing the East Side Access and Second Avenue Subway projects, and has receivedfederal funding commitments for the former and will soon receive one for the latter. Yet, theagency still faces significant challenges — the rising deficit, organizational issues including dif-ficult labor relations in some of its operating agencies, and customer relations. Few people havebeen more prepared for the job than the current Executive Director and CEO of the MTA and for-mer Director of the NYU Wagner Rudin Center, Elliot G. (Lee) Sander. Appointed to his positionby Governor Eliot Spitzer at the beginning of 2007, Lee has attained experience through his morethan 25-year long career in public positions of increasing responsibility. Even while in the privatesector, he influenced public policy decisions through his role at the Rudin Center and as Co-Chairman of the Empire State Transportation Alliance (ESTA). Rachel Weinberger, AssistantProfessor of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania, and a member of theJournal’s Editorial Board, recently interviewed Lee regarding his vision for the MTA.

RW: Lee, you have an impressive resume,Senior VP at DMJM Harris, Director of theRudin Center, NYCDOT Commissioner, andmany more. What prepared you most forthe current position?

ES: If I had to pick one position that preparedme, it was being Commissioner of the NYCDepartment of Transportation (NYCDOT).NYCDOT was larger than either Metro-NorthRailroad (MNR) or Long Island Rail Road(LIRR), and the only entity larger at MTA isNew York City Transit (NYCT). In terms oflarge agency dynamics, variety, and the pressdemands, NYCDOT has a similar feel. But atthe MTA, it is just a little more intense.

I’m also very fortunate to have the broadspectrum of my professional experience,which has been helpful. The main focus in mycareer has been organizational change. Thatwas true with my assignment in running theDivision of Parking at NYCDOT, when I ran theManhattan Bus Division for NYC Transit, andwhen I ran the Division of Housing andCommunity Renewal (DHCR)‘s Office of RentAdministration. Similarly, my work in the pri-vate sector at Frederick R. Harris and thenDMJM Harris in running their New York andthen Metro Group office also involved a sig-nificant element of organizational change.On the policy side, my work in Albany at the

New York State DOT and at Rudin Center hasbeen invaluable.

RW: Looking forward then, what do you hopeto accomplish in the next four years?

ES: I would like the MTA to be the best in classof large, older public transportation agenciesin the world. I have identified seven areas ofstrategic focus that we will be working onaggressively to help get us there.

First, I want to dramatically improve workforcedevelopment at the MTA. That includes our for-mal relationship with organized labor, how weinteract with our workforce, and how we dealwith issues such as succession planning andexecutive development. One of the majorchallenges we’re facing is the retirement of alot of our long–term skilled employees. This isa problem throughout the public sector. Wehave not done enough to train their replace-ments or to address the issue of ensuring thatwe are doing enough to both attract and groomthe kind of talent that is required to managethe MTA. This is an issue at all levels of theorganization.

Second is institutional reform. There’s a needfor significant institutional reform at the MTA.We have seven different agencies that have

(Continued on page 5)

N E W Y O R K

TRANSPORTATIONJOURNAL

www.wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter

Volume XI No. 1 Fall 2007

1

Inside NYTJ

THE NEW VISION FOR MTA: ANINTERVIEW WITH ELLIOT “LEE” SANDER

(Cont. on page 2)

The New York Transportation Journal is published by the NYU Wagner RudinCenter for Transportation Policy & Management.

The Rudin Center gratefully acknowledges the foundation, corporate, and individ-ual sponsors that make possible our efforts to promote progressive transportationpolicy, including the New York Transportation Journal.

The views expressed in the New York Transportation Journal are those of theauthors and not necessarily those of New York University, the Rudin Center, or anyof its affiliated organizations and funders.

Letters to the Editor and other inquiries may be addressed to Marta Panero at:

Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & ManagementNYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service295 Lafayette Street, 2nd FloorNew York, NY 10012Phone: (212) 998-7545; Fax: (212) 995-4611Email: rudin.center@nyu.eduwebsite: wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter

2NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

essentially been run as independent organiza-tions. This is incredibly inefficient. In a 21st-Century world where the objective is to breakdown boundaries and create value through syner-gy, the MTA, as currently constituted, is theantithesis of a well-integrated, “flat” organiza-tion. This is particularly important in a post9/11 world where we need to optimize systemredundancy in the event of an emergency, orwhen we want our customers to feel some ele-ment of uniformity in the system, and where wewant to maximize opportunities for our employ-ees for career development. My objective is torun the MTA like one integrated organization withthe agencies operating as large,semi–autonomous, but well-integrated units.

RW: Can you give some examples?

ES: Sure. We are beginning to operate MTA Bus,NYCT Bus, and Long Island Bus in a coordinatedmanner. We have recently appointed one chieftransportation officer for both the NYCT Busesand MTA Bus, who is responsible for roadoperations for both entities. Similarly, we nowhave one chief maintenance officer for bothorganizations.

RW: And that used to be multiple positions?

ES: Yes, until about a month ago. We’re workinghard to bring the commuter rail and bus entitiestogether in areas that are common, like procure-ment, training, road operations and executivedevelopment. We want the agencies operating ina parallel manner, and we’re looking at identify-ing more areas where there can be joint devel-opment or resource optimization. On the person-nel side, if we have a Deputy Superintendent inLI Bus who has the talent to be promoted, I wantto be able to give that person the opportunity, ifthere’s an opening, with MTA Bus or NYCT Bus.Likewise we can train managers at MNR and thenthey can be promoted to more senior positions atLIRR without an unusually painful transition.That creates career opportunities that we didn’thave, and this initiative feeds into our workforcedevelopment agenda as well.

Also, in terms of back office functions, we are moving aggressively on sharedservices. The vision is ultimately to have these support services provided by MTA.It does not make a great deal of sense to have separate pension units at NYCT,MTA Bus, and LIRR. We’re going to consolidate as many of those back office func-tions as we can.

RW: What about route consolidation?

ES: Right now there is a great deal of inefficiency and redundancy in the bussystems. We have routes operating from depots that are not necessarily closestto the routes. This is a legacy of the different operating entities. For example,routes that are operated by MTA Bus could be operated more efficiently from aNYCT Bus depot. But I needstatutory permission to dothe full route consolidation.While we work on gettingstatutory permission to dothat we are busy working onthe managerial and supportservices. And we are tryingto do this in a collaborativeway with our unions.

We think there are savingsto be had, but it is not just about savings, it also provides better service to thepublic and promotes the vision of a more integrated and capable MTA.

We are also talking about inter-operability. Our customers often use more thanone of our agencies. They use the entire MTA network, for example coming in onthe LIRR and then taking NYCT subways. But beyond that, we are advancing theconcept of regional transit inter-operability. We are looking aggressively to seehow we can operate MNR on LIRR’s network and vice versa. The first major stepin that direction is our commitment to operate a one-seat MNR/New JerseyTransit (NJT) ride from MNR territory to the Meadowlands. There are numerouslabor issues, equipment issues involving NJT, the MTA, and Amtrak — which is yeta third organization in the mix — but we expect to initiate this service by April2009. This is “revolutionary” in the context of the MTA.

RW: How well would you say your management team is equipped to handlethe institutional changes you are making?

ES: Two of the most significant things we have done so far are to put in place ateam and to articulate a broader vision for the MTA. I have a team of extraordi-nary transportation professionals. We have been fortunate enough to both retainsome of the great talent we had here, as well as bring in other strong talent. Inaddition, we have been able to bring back to the MTA some extraordinary peo-ple. These include Howard Roberts, Helena Williams, and Hilary Ring. In somecases retaining talent, people like Bill Wheeler, Linda Kleinbaum, Bill Morange,

New York Transportation Journal

Allison L. C. de Cerreño, PublisherBrian P. Sterman, EditorMarta A. Panero, Associate Editor

Editorial Board

John Falcocchio Gene RussianoffJosé Holguín-Veras Sam SchwartzRogan Kersh Hyeon-Shic ShinRobert Paaswell Rachel Weinberger Henry Peyrebrune Robert Yaro

Sander interview (Cont. from page 1)

“ Two of the most significantthings we have done so far areto put in place a team and toarticulate a broader vision for

the MTA.”

Chris Boylan, and Gary Dellaverson, in somecases promoting outstanding talent likeSusan Kuperfman, and in other cases recruit-ing new talent like Jim Henly, ErnestTollerson and Jeremy Soffin.

The vision and values I have begun to artic-ulate reflect the Governor’s and my feelingof where the MTA needs to go. It’s consistentwith the Board’s vision and everybody, forthe most part, appears to be on board. I’veworked hard at developing close workingrelationships with the Board members. Withthe group of outstanding professionals andthe vision we have I think we are well posi-tioned to move ahead.

RW: What’s number three?

ES: The third area is customer service.Earlier in the year we had a weekend servicediversion for the No. 7 line and it was notgoing well. Everybody, at all levels of theorganization realized it. One general super-intendent told me “we knew we were losingour customer focus and it was going to catchup with us.” And so we were able to, in thecase of the weekend diversions, change ourcourse and ultimately have a very strongresponse. We implemented a variety ofactions that significantly improved the serv-ice to the customers, like dramaticallyimproved signage, additional customer serv-ice agents, and extending our service from74th and Roosevelt to 61st and Woodside,which we always had the capability of doing.

A new initiative that Howard Roberts hasbegun to implement is a rider report card.This is something he and I talked about whenwe were running the NYCT Bus System in the‘80s. Howard then implemented it fully atSEPTA, and he found it to be very helpful. Heactually was able to increase the grade inPhiladelphia. And so implementing thatprocess is significant in terms of system–wide customer service. We are now engagedin specific improvements in response to thatreport card. Both of us are very excitedabout it. There are various other improve-ments that we are in the process ofdoing or have already done, whether it is atNYCT, LIRR, or elsewhere, to improve cus-tomer service.

The fourth piece is system expansion, sys-tem improvement and planning. We have ahuge agenda both in terms of the mega-proj-ects and in terms of implementing the newtechnologies that will enable us to have bet-ter public information, better real-timecontrol of our trains, and faster movementof our buses.

VOLUME XI NO.1 FALL 2007

3NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

In addition to these areas, we are focusingon security, sustainability, and implementinga viable financial plan for the next severalyears. Regarding security, we need to makesure the system is as secure as possible, aswe have been a target of Al-Qaeda and oth-ers. On sustainability, we recently announ-ced a Blue Ribbon panel that will help usdevelop a master plan to improve ourecological footprint. And on finances, weneed to continue to work hard with theGovernor and the Legislature to ensure wehave adequate support for our operating andcapital budget.

RW: Speaking of sustainability, how doesthe Mayor’s sustainability plan affect you?

ES: I’m very supportive of the Mayor’s plan.I worked very closely with the Mayor andDeputy Mayor Doctoroff when the Mayorreleased PlaNYC, especially the congestionpricing component because I feel stronglythat the concept of congestion pricing iscritical to the city and to the region. I’mpleased to have been named by theGovernor to the Congestion MitigationCommission. The MTA worked very hard,standing shoulder to shoulder with the City,on the Urban Partners application to seekfederal support for the MTA’s operating andcapital budget.

In terms of how it affects us, it has somemajor impacts. We will have an extraordina-ry amount of additional work to do. We arelooking at operating approximately 360 newbuses, we anticipate major service changesand we will have to acquire additional busstorage space. We feel that the benefits areabsolutely worth doing this. It’s our job andit’s the best way forward for the region.

One of the things we’re looking at creatingover the next several months here is theMTA’s own vision for mobility in the regionover the next 25 years. While we’re veryappreciative of the Mayor’s vision, it is justfor the five boroughs. We have a broadernetwork and the MTA does not yet have inplace the kind of strategic vision from a pub-lic transportation standpoint that we needto meet the challenges of 2030 on aregional basis.

RW: You mentioned media demands whenyou compared the MTA with your experi-ence at NYCDOT and I think hardly a daygoes by that we don’t read somethingabout the MTA in the paper, sometimesfare hikes, sometimes maintenance issues,security, etc. How accurate is the cover-age?

Elliot G. Sander was recommended to theposition of Executive Director and ChiefExecutive Officer of the MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA) byGovernor Eliot Spitzer on Dec. 15, 2006,and appointed by MTA Chairman PeterKalikow on January 2, 2007. Mr. Sanderoversees an organization that provides 2.4billion subway, rail, and bus trips eachyear to New Yorkers — the equivalent ofabout one in every three users of masstransit in the United States, and two-thirds of the nation's rail riders. MTABridges and Tunnels carry more than 300million vehicles a year — more than anybridge and tunnel authority in the nation.

Mr. Sander has over 25 years of public andprivate sector experience executing highprofile transportation programs and proj-ects in the New York metropolitan area.He is a former Senior Vice President atDMJM Harris, a global transportationinfrastructure firm; and former Directorand Founder of the Rudin Center forTransportation Policy and Management atthe Robert F. Wagner Graduate School ofPublic Service at New York University.

In his public service career he has servedin a variety of positions, includingCommissioner of the New York CityDepartment of Transportation (NYCDOT);Commissioner of the New York City Taxiand Limousine Commission; Director ofTransit for New York State Department ofTransportation; Deputy Commissioner forthe New York State Division of Housing andCommunity Renewal, where he oversawthe State’s rent regulatory system;Assistant General Manager for MTA NewYork City Transit, where he ran theManhattan Bus Division; and ExecutiveDirector of Operational Services at NYC-DOT, where he oversaw the City’s munici-pal parking system and borough trafficengineering. Mr. Sander’s work in effect-ing organizational change and influencingstate transportation policy has been cov-ered extensively in the New York Times,Governing Magazine, and other writtenand electronic media.

Mr. Sander began his career as a budgetanalyst in the New York City Office ofManagement and Budget. He is a graduateof the School of Foreign Service atGeorgetown University. (Cont. on page 13)

SURFACE, AIR, AND WATERWAYS: FOCUSING IN

4

Home to some of the most densely populated regions of the coun-try, over 42 million people (15% of total U.S. population), and a$1.99 trillion economy (2005), the Northeast Corridor (NEC) is alsoplagued by some of the most congested roadways, air, and railwayinfrastructure in the country, both with regard to passengers andfreight.1 With very limited ability to expand transportation capac-ity, particularly in terms of highways and airspace, developing anactionable and effective vision for an integrated transportationsystem in the Northeast Corridor is critical. Such a vision needs tonot only effectively link all the modes throughout the Corridor, butalso needs to grapple with the task of determining the mostrational use of each of them for passengers and/or freight.

Given that almost half of all U.S. transit riders and over three-quarters of U.S. rail commuters reside in the NEC, such a visionneeds to include intercity rail as the backbone of the system.2 Ahigh-speed, efficient, and reliable intercity rail service could helpaddress congestion problems in the air by providing a ground-based alternative to air travel for trips shorter than 500 miles, andcould alleviate highway congestion (where the bulk of currentfreight movements take place in the corridor) by making railattractive for trips of more than 100 miles. Such service could alsogenerate economic benefits by making it possible for daily inter-city commuting, allowing businesses to draw off a much largerbase for employees, and allowing employees to look for jobs oraffordable housing beyond their immediate urban centers.

However, while arguably the best intercity service in the nation,the Northeast Corridor’s intercity rail service still falls short of itsglobal competitors in Europe and Asia in terms of reliability, effi-ciency, and travel times. While France recently tested a high-speed train that can reach maximum speeds of 357 miles per hour(mph), and Shanghai’s Maglev system zips along easily at 268 mph(with higher maximum speeds), and while Japan’s soon-to-beolder generation Shinkansen reaches speeds of 186 mph, the NEC’sAcela — the flagship of intercity passenger rail in the United States— brings up the rear with maximum authorized speeds of only 150mph on only 33.9 miles of the entire length of the corridor.3

To bring the Corridor’s intercity rail service to a point that not onlyentices passengers from automobile and air, but also makes possi-ble the economic linkages described above, several things need tohappen. First, the NEC rail corridor needs to be brought up to astate of good repair. Second, policy decisions (and corresponding

funding to support them) need to be made to allow for a true high-speed intercity rail system that is both closely linked with the avi-ation industry, and is supported by transit networks in the cities itconnects.

Turning Threats into Opportunity

For over 40 years, proponents of high-speed rail (HSR) have beentrying to develop such systems in the United States with little suc-cess. Nevertheless, there are several threats coalescing, regional-ly, nationally, and even globally, which could provide a key oppor-tunity for gaining the political and financial support necessary forHSR along the NEC.

Congestion. Rail offers one means for alleviating congestion on theincreasingly crowded highways and airways throughout the north-east. Along the entire Corridor, roadways are clogged with passen-ger and freight traffic. In 2005, travelers on the roadways along theNEC experienced over 867 million hours of travel delay, for a totalcost of over $14.6 billion.4 The experience for trucks is similar withbetween 750,000 and 1.2 million annual truck hours of delay

around every major city in the Corridor.5 In fact, congestion alongI-95 actually now extends beyond the NEC and as far south as theCarolinas.

Airspace is also increasingly congested. According to the mostrecent Terminal Area Forecast Summary, projected growth inenplanements by 2025 for the largest five airports in the corridorranges from 62.8% (General Edward Lawrence Logan International,Boston, MA) to over 128% (Washington Dulles International,

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

BY ALLISON L. C. DE CERREÑO, PH.D.

FROM MEGALOPOLIS TO MEGAMODAL: THE

FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Ph.D., is Director of the NYUWagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy &Management.

“...with very limited ability toexpand transportation capacity...

developing an actionable and effec-tive vision for an integrated trans-portation system in the Northeast

Corridor is critical.”

One must be careful at comparing emissionsacross mode, since there are many interven-ing factors (e.g., climate, type of locomotiveengine, power generation mix). However,broadly speaking, rail does produce feweremissions of several key pollutants (Figures 1and 2).

Security. With respect to transportation, thedebate since September 11, 2001 has revolvedprimarily around how best to ensure the secu-rity of passengers and freight. However, thereare two other ways in which security concernsbecome an opportunity for rail.

• Redundancy, Resiliency, Robustness.Central to enhancing security is increas-ing redundancy (the availability of alter-nate options), resiliency (the ability torecover from an event), and robustness(the inherent strength to withstand anevent without degrading). In transporta-tion, this means providing alternate andwell connected modes so that if some-thing were to occur — either a human-made or natural catastrophe — othermeans would be available for continuingto move passengers and freight. In fact,on September 11, when planes aroundthe country were grounded, most raillines continued to run, providing vitalconnections, especially on the eastcoast.

• Energy. A key U.S. policy goal is low-ering our reliance on foreign petroleum.By sector, transportation accounts forthe largest share of petroleum usage inthe United States, with over two-thirdsof all petroleum used in transportationin 2005 (Figure 3).13 Energy consumptionin the transportation sector is almostentirely based on petroleum (98%).14 Bymode, highway vehicle travel accountsfor 85% of petroleum used in transporta-tion, air travel accounts for 9%, and theremainder (6%) represents a combina-tion of rail and waterborne travel.15 Railtends to be more energy efficient thanmotor vehicles. For example, the U.S.Department of Energy cites rail as beingroughly 11.5 times more efficient (interms of Btu/ton mile) than trucks.16

5

Washington, DC). By 2025, enplanements atJohn F. Kennedy International (New York City,NY), Newark Liberty International (Newark,NJ), and Philadelphia International(Philadelphia, PA), are expected to increase by91.6%, 88.5%, and 96.3%, respectively.6

Moreover, according to the Federal AviationAdministration, even if all current plannedimprovements are made at John F. KennedyInternational, Newark Liberty International,and Philadelphia International airports, each ofthem will still need more capacity by 2025.7 Aircargo is also growing, albeit at a more modestrate than passenger travel. According to theAirports Council International, cargo volumesover the twelve-month period ending inFebruary 2007 grew by 1.3% at John F. KennedyAirport, and by 2.1% at Newark LibertyInternational Airport.8 As congestion reaches apoint where there is no more capacity to befound, and as costs increase and productivity islost, rail can provide an important means formoving additional passengers and freight.

Environmental and Health Concerns.Environmental and health concerns areincreasingly making headlines, both in terms ofgreenhouse gas emissions and pollutants beinglinked to asthma and other debilitating condi-tions. Transportation is the second largest pro-ducer, after electric power generation, of car-bon dioxide (CO2). In 2006, the transportationsector contributed roughly one-third of all U.S.CO2 emissions.9 This share is expected to growthrough 2025. In 2002, the transportation in-dustry was also responsible for 77.3% of carbonmonoxide (CO) emissions. CO indirectly increa-ses global warming by indirectly affectinglevels of other direct greenhouse gases likemethane and ozone.10 Ozone, created by themixing of volatile organic compounds (VOC)and nitrogen oxides (NOx), in the presence ofheated sunlight, has also been implicated inlung problems and increased asthma attacks.11

In 2002, 54.3% of the total NOx emissions in theUnited States, and 43.7% of the emissions ofVOC, resulted from the transportation sector.12

Transportation is also responsible for emissionsof ammonia, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particu-late matter, all of which are of concern tohealth and the environment.

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

VOLUME XI NO.1 FALL 2007

(Cont. on page 12)

In her lead article for the Journal,Rachel Weinberger interviewsElliot G. (Lee) Sander, ExecutiveDirector and CEO of the MTA, andour former publisher and Directorof the Rudin Center. In his inter-view with Rachel, Lee talks aboutthe challenges facing the MTA andhis vision for the agency.

In a timely article on FinancingTransportation, Linda Spock dis-cusses research she conducted forthe Rudin Center regarding pro-grammed transit fare increasepolicies. Linda presents policiesthat have been initiated by sometransit properties in the UnitedStates and London, and theirexperiences in implementingthem.

Sustainable Development contin-ues to be a hot topic in the NewYork suburbs. In a Suburbs ofNew York article, Gerry Bogacz ofthe New York MetropolitanTransportation Council (NYMTC)describes the continuing efforts toestablish a sustainable develop-ment program on the eastern endof Long Island.

A key component of PlaNYC, isBus Rapid Transit (BRT). In aBeyond the Region article, threeauthors — Paul Noumba, GyengChul Kim, and PatcharepornTalvanna — write about theimplementation of the BRT systemin Seoul, South Korea.

Finally, as has been discussed inmany editions of the Journal, andwill be the focus of this year’s FallConference, the congestion of theNortheast Corridor’s air and sur-face transportation system needto be addressed if the NEC is toremain competitive international-ly. In a Surface, Air, and Water-ways article, Allison L. C. deCerreño introduces a megamodalapproach that looks at all trans-portation modes along the entirecorridor, and begins to develop avision for how passengers andfreight can most effectively sharethe system while creating thehighest levels of mobility andaccess for both people and goods.

As always, we hope that you enjoyreading this edition of the Journaland find it informative.As armative.

Figure 1. Tons/Millions of Passenger Miles (Selected Pollutants)

Pollutant Rail Air Car

VOC 0.084 1.582 0.703

CO 0.703 2.619 5.981

NOX 1.214 1.164 1.955

Source: MHSRA, http://www.midwesthsr.org/whyRail_cleaner.htm

Letter from the Editor (Cont. from p. 1)

6NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

Transit fares have been making headlines in recent months asmajor transit agencies in the New York metropolitan region haveannounced fare increases or plans for fare increases. In May2007, NJ Transit implemented a fare increase averaging 9.6 per-cent, while maintaining that “fare increases are always anoption of last resort.” More recently, the MetropolitanTransportation Authority (MTA) disclosed the need for a series ofsubway and commuter rail fare increases in future years. Whilepublic reaction has been mixed, the use of regular, pre-plannedor “programmed” fare increases is not new to the transit world.

Based on a literature review and extensive, in-depth interviewswith transit agency officials across the country and in London, asoon-to-be released NYU Wagner Rudin Center study summarizesthe experiences of a number of transit agencies which haveimplemented fare increases on a scheduled, regular basisinstead of trying to institute them on an “as needed” basis.

The Experience with Programmed Fare Increases

Some agencies have had as much as several decades of successwith programmed fare increases. For example, the predecessoragency of today’s Transport for London (TfL) began raising busand subway fares annually and generally by a little more thanthe inflation rate in the mid-1980s. Around that same time, LaneTransit District (LTD) in Oregon established its own fare policywith annual incremental fare increases, which is still being usedtoday. However, LTD uses a different approach, rotating theannual increases among fare types (cash, token, or individualpass) so that customers have the option of switching to a faretype which has not increased over the previous year’s fare. Alsoin Oregon, TriMet, the Portland area transit operator, beganraising fares by a nickel every other year in 1988 which it thenchanged to annual increases ten years later in order to keep upwith escalating costs. There is no standard formula or specificindex used by TriMet in setting fare increases each year. The sizeof the fare increase is pegged to the increase in total costs inTriMet’s annual budget proposal, though the agency does consid-er the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and its targeted 25 percentfarebox recovery ratio in settling on proposed fare increaseseach year. Generally fare increases coincide with service/routechanges in September of each year so that all customer materi-als can incorporate new information at the same time on anannual cycle. In practice, all fares have continued to rise byabout a nickel (though on an annual basis now, rather than everytwo years); rounding to the nearest nickel results in differingpercentage increases, but on average represents a two to threepercent change. Describing the increases as “more of a practicethan a formal policy,” TriMet echoes other agencies’ motivations

of trying to keep up with the cost of service so as to avoid larg-er “catch up” increases believed to have more of a negativeimpact on ridership.

A number of other agencies, all in the Western United States,also use programmed fare increases. The Bay Area Rapid TransitDistrict (BART) in the San Francisco Bay area is one of the mostrecent to adopt such an approach, using a very detailed CPI-based formula to calculate biennial fare increases. The RegionalTransportation Commission (RTC) in Reno, Nevada also recentlyintroduced programmed fare increases, though on an annualbasis and with a more flexible methodology to allow its fares toreflect actual increases in cost which often exceed escalation inthe CPI. Interestingly, the change in RTC’s fare policy was madein response to customer surveys indicating a preference forsmaller, more frequent fare increases. Metrolink, the regionalrail system in Southern California, began a similar annual fareincrease procedure in 2004, to be implemented over a ten yearperiod in combination with fare restructuring, but expects uni-form fare increases to continue annually thereafter in order toavoid reducing service in the context of limited subsidies avail-able from its member agencies. Golden Gate Transit and GoldenGate Ferries (in the San Francisco Bay area) are both in their sec-ond Five-Year Transit Fare Program, under which fares areincreased up to five percent each year, unless the Board findsactual cost escalation has been lower and chooses to implementsmaller fare increases. Elsewhere, Denver’s Regional

FINANCING TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAMMED TRANSIT FARES: KEEPING UP VERSUSCATCHING UP

BY LINDA M. SPOCK

“... customers appear to be willingto pay increasingly higher fares on aregular basis if they feel they clearlybenefit from reliable transit service;

the agency does its fair share incontributing to the most efficient

and cost effective operation possible;and the fare increases are small and

predictable.”

Linda M. Spock is President of Spock Solutions, Inc., andVisiting Practitioner at the NYU Wagner Rudin Center forTransportation Policy and Management.

7NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

VOLUME XI NO.1 FALL 2007

Transportation District (RTD) is anotheragency that has shifted to periodic fareincreases, programming them to occur everythree years, but with the flexibility to pro-pose more frequent changes in fares if the cir-cumstances warrant, as they did in 2006 whenthe agency found itself confronting the risingcost of diesel fuel. Finally, Washington StateFerries reacted to a sudden elimination of amajor funding source with annual increasesbeginning in 2001 to meet its farebox recov-ery targets.

Good for Both Agencies and TheirCustomers

Agencies included in the upcoming study con-sistently reported numerous benefits of pro-grammed fare increases. As noted by TfL,“It’s worked for us to have a framework ofregular increases. It makes it easier to plan byremoving one degree of uncertainty from theprocess.” Several agencies, including BART,Golden Gate Transit, and Golden Gate Ferries,see their regular fare increases as an impor-tant element of providing financial stability.Moreover, agencies report that because suchfare hikes are predictable and typically small-er in magnitude, this approach has provenmore acceptable to their customers. Largerincreases that are necessitated by longer timeperiods between fare adjustments can bemore difficult for customers to budget. At thesame time, an agency’s inability to keep pacewith costs as a result of less frequent increas-es makes it difficult to meet operational andcapital programming needs. In short, multi-year capital programs can be implementedmore effectively, and service levels can bemaintained, when coupled with predictableand growing sources of funds. What seems tomatter to the customer is that fare increasesoccur as expected. Customers realize thatcosts go up over time and while they may notlike fare increases, they accept them as nec-essary for agencies to sustain and improveservice levels.

Keys to Success

Gaining and sustaining customer understand-ing and acceptance of programmed fareincreases is critical to their success. Theexperience of agencies with such policies inplace offers a number of lessons learned inthis regard:

• BART emphasized the value of using awidely known and understood measure— inflation — and expressing in veryclear and understandable terms to itscustomer exactly how the increases are

calculated and implemented.

• Golden Gate Transit and Golden GateFerries stressed the importance of cus-tomers feeling they are getting ade-quate service and the agencies’demonstrated willingness to make costcuts, including administrative reduc-tions, as part of an overall strategy tomeet fiscal challenges.

• Washington State Ferries’ experiencereveals the importance of communicat-ing how the agency is funded and theconstraints on the agency’s ability tocontrol costs, or in an agency represen-tative’s words, “be[ing] transparentover where money comes from andwhere it goes.”

Providing multiple opportunities for cus-tomer input on service and fare issues, suchas open board meetings, public hearings,advisory groups, etc., also appeared to be animportant factor for most of the case studyagencies. Connecting all these keys, inessence, is the importance of transparencyand trust when implementing programmedfare increases.

Concluding Observations

At a time when the question of what alter-natives exist for financing transportation isat the forefront of discussions on all modes,this study demonstrates that onemethod — programmed fare increases — isviable across a range of transit agency sizes,organization types, and funding structures.Moreover, customers appear to be willing topay increasingly higher fares on a regularbasis if they feel they clearly benefit fromreliable transit service; the agency does its“fair share” in contributing to the most effi-cient and cost effective operation possible;and the fare increases are small and pre-dictable. Finally, based on the experiencesof the agencies in the study, when publicacceptance and political support exist for aspecified level of funding which fares mustcontribute, implementation of programmedfare increases may be easier to achieve.

Instituting programmed fare increases maybecome increasingly attractive as a tool tomeet funding gaps, particularly as transitagencies face growing maintenance needs onaging systems in parallel with demand forexpanding service. These case study experi-ences provide a resource for other transitagencies to consider.

EXAMPLES OF PROGRAMMED

FARE INCREASES

BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART),CALIFORNIA

Frequency of increases: Everytwo years through 2012. Basis for the increases: An explic-it formula that uses averagechange in the Consumer Priceindex (CPI), less a productivity fac-tor valued at a half percent. Magnitude of increases: 3.7% in2006; 5.4% increase to be imple-mented in January 2008.

LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT (LTD),OREGON

Frequency of increases: Annually,but rotated among fare types(e.g., cash, token, individual pass)so no increase in at least one faretype each year.Basis for the increases: Three-year rolling average of LTD costs.Magnitude of increases: Variedfrom 2.9% to 10% since 2004.

METROLINK, CALIFORNIA

Frequency of increases: Everyyear on July 1, beginning in 2004. Basis for the increases: No partic-ular formula or index applied;based on growth in agency’sexpenses tempered by what cus-tomers can afford. Magnitude of increases: 3.5% to5.5% system-wide average.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION (RTC), NEVADA

Frequency of increases: Annually.Basis for the increases: Inflationindex, based on the Western UrbanCPI rolling five-year averages (usedas a guideline); this is the sameindex used to adjust the RTC fueltax rates. Magnitude of increases: 2.62% in2006, and 2.94% in 2007.

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (TFL),UNITED KINGDOM

Frequency of increases: Annually.Basis for the increases: RetailPrice Index plus some percent. Magnitude of increases: Varies.

THE SUBURBS OF NEW YORK: SUFFOLK COUNTY

8 NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

LONG ISLAND EAST END’S ODYSSEY TOWARD

SUSTAINABILITY

Take five towns and ten villages. Spread them out over a natu-ral cul-de-sac made up of two peninsulas at the eastern end ofa hundred-mile long island. Make them stewards of a beautifulnatural area that attracts tourists, vacationers and secondhome owners in large numbers, more than doubling their yearround residential population. Season them with different localconcerns and political contexts and give them individual controlover development decisions in an area where roughly 40% of thedevelopable land is currently comprised of agricultural uses.Mix thoroughly and heat with development pressures and attimes overwhelming traffic congestion. Welcome to LongIsland’s East End.

What is needed to work toward sustainability in a situation likethis? How can local towns and villages achieve a sustainablefuture? These are the critical questions that define the struggleof the East End’s municipalities over the last decade to formu-late a sustainable future for their very unique area. They havetaken steps into uncharted territories such as experimentalplanning studies, joint discussions with transportation agencies,and inter-municipal agreements to pursue common planningthemes. Their efforts were and are equal parts saga and primerwhich provide a fascinating case study and guidebook for therest of the region.

In the Beginning…

In the late 1990s, the East End entered into a larger regionalexperiment. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council(NYMTC), a regional council of governments charged with coor-dinated regional transportation planning in New York City, sub-urban Long Island and the Lower Hudson Valley, had begun towork with local municipal planners in its region to identify areasthat presented conditions appropriate for testing a newapproach it was developing to integrate land use and trans-portation planning. The East End Supervisors’ and Mayors’Association (a confederation of the area’s municipal officials)saw the East End, with its combination of traffic congestion anddevelopment pressures, as a potential setting for this pilotapproach toward a sustainable future. The Association activelysought to have the East End host one of these new “SustainableDevelopment Studies.” Responding to the local expression ofinterest, the member agencies of NYMTC agreed to include theEast End as one of the four pilot studies.

The planning initiative that resulted was given the nameSustainable East End Development Strategies, or SEEDS, by theEast End’s municipalities. The symbolism of the acronym

reflected both the agricultural heritage of the area and themunicipalities’ desire to use this planning work as a kernel fromwhich a consensus on a sustainable future might grow.

The Process

The SEEDS initiative officially kicked off in April 2001, as a part-nership between the Association and NYMTC’s Long Island mem-bers — Suffolk County, the MTA Long Island Railroad, and the LongIsland regional office of the New York State Department ofTransportation. Through SEEDS, these partners set out togetheron an odyssey that would not reach its official conclusion until

December of 2005. Along the way, anextensive program of community issuesscans and visioning sessions yieldedthousands of ideas and points of infor-mation that were considered and mold-ed into five potential land use futuresand five potential transportationfutures.

Using simulation modeling, the techni-cal capabilities of NYMTC and the con-sultant team selected to assist in theinitiative were then brought to bear in

forecasting the outcomes of every combination of these potentialfutures. A public process was employed to develop sets of quan-titative and qualitative performance measures that were used tojudge the resulting forecasts from each combination of potentialfutures. The modeling output was processed using the perform-ance measures and then presented back to the East End commu-nities through another series of community meetings and work-shops.

Despite the time that was needed to execute an integrated plan-ning process on this scale, the results of the future forecasts wereultimately discussed and debated publicly and among the EastEnd’s planning and elected officials. Those discussions were fruit-ful, yielding a preferred land use future and a related set oftransportation improvements that, if executed together, wouldsustain one another. At the regional summit of elected officialsthat concluded the planning portion of the SEEDS process inDecember 2005, the participants were able to come togetherover this shared, sustainable vision of the East End’s future.

BY GERRY BOGACZ

Gerry Bogacz is Director of Planning at the New YorkMetropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC).

9NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

VOLUME XI NO.1 FALL 2007

The Vision

The agreed upon SEEDS Concept Plan containstwo major visions. On the land use side, theSEEDS process and technical analyses under-scored the potential negative transportationimpacts of future build-out under existinglocal master plans and zoning ordinances.To avoid these, the consensus land use visionthat emerged from SEEDS calls for a reduction

in overall future development in the EastEnd municipalities, for the focusing ofnew land use development in and arounda series of new hamlet centers, and for con-tinuing efforts to protect agricultural andopen space.

The consensus transportation vision seeks toexploit these preferred land use characteris-tics in order to reduce the overall growth invehicle trips to the greatest extent possible.It features the implementation of integratedintermodal transportation hubs in alignmentwith the hamlet centers where growth will befocused. These transportation hubs willaccommodate increased rail and bus services,and demand-responsive feeder/distributorservices and shuttle bus services in varyingcombinations, depending on their locations.The hubs will also feature functional attrib-utes such as park & ride facilities, bicycleparking, and a range of passenger amenitiesappropriate to specific locations. The trans-portation vision also brings transportationmanagement strategies to bear to maximizethe efficiency, safety and accessibility of theEast End’s roadway network, rather thanexpanding roadway capacity.

With the advent of the consensus reachedthrough SEEDS, the East End’s municipalitiesachieved a long-sought milestone: a common

long-range vision for the development of theEast End. It is a vision that is sustainable. Itbalances growth focused in hamlet centersand the preservation of the East End’sunique character. It takes steps to mitigateanticipated growth in vehicle trips by reduc-ing build out, increasing walkability, anddefining innovative ridesharing and publictransit opportunities. And, it is a vision thatchannels development pressures away fromfragile agricultural and natural areas. Mostimportantly, it is a vision developed by themunicipalities themselves and their inter-ested residents and stakeholders — not oneimposed by other entities.

Where to Go From Here…

As significant as the achievement of thismilestone is, it does not mark the end of theEast End’s journey toward sustainability.Now the real work of implementation hasbegun, and the consensus that emergedfrom the SEEDS initiative must weather timeand the inevitable tensions that will ariseduring implementation as a result of themyriad decisions needed to make the visiona reality.

However, a further foundation for imple-mentation has been recently laid with theannouncement by the Association that allfive towns and six of the constituent villageshave signed an unprecedented inter-munici-pal memorandum of understanding to workjointly towards the consensus future visionthat emerged from SEEDS. In response, theEast End Transportation Council is develop-ing a Land Use Subcommittee to worktowards the development future envisionedby SEEDS, while at the same time establish-ing an action plan for implementing therelated transportation improvements.Several early action items include program-ming of a contra flow lane for County Road39 in the NYMTC TransportationImprovement Program, and a study of betterbus-rail connections.

Gradually, the regional dialogue on the EastEnd is being strengthened. Implementationis still by no means guaranteed, but themechanisms to achieve success are beingdeveloped, and the guiding vision is nowclear to those involved.

Hyeon-Shic’s blurb onSustainability in the region

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) is an association of govern-ments, transportation providers and environmental agencies that is a collaborative forumfor regional transportation planning.

“...it is a vision developedby the municipalitiesthemselves and theirinterested residents

and stakeholders — notimposed by other

entitites. ”

SUSTAINABILITY STUDIES IN

OUR REGION

Throughout the New York metropol-itan region, there are severalefforts in place that aim at devel-oping sustainable plans that linkland use and transportation.

Route 303 SustainableDevelopment Study

Located in Rockland County, in theTown of Orangetown, and funded bythe New York State Department ofTransportation (NYSDOT), the goalof this study was to improve safety,deal with land use and zoningissues, and address aesthetic issuesrelated to the Route 303 Corridor.The effort successfully developed aconsensus on a plan for develop-ment over the next decade thataddresses land use and transporta-tion, and is consistent with commu-nity needs. The effort is now in theimplementation phase.

Routes 202/35/6, Bear MtParkway SustainableDevelopment Study

Located in Northern WestchesterCounty and spanning the Towns ofYorktown and Cortlandt and theCity of Peekskill, this study soughtto develop a vision and plan formodifying land use practices to helpimprove traffic conditions in sever-al major corridors. Funded by NYS-DOT, but overseen by WestchesterCounty, the project was successfulin developing a shared purpose andrecognition that land use and trans-portation decisions undertaken byone municipality affect others aswell. Several recommended proj-ects have been placed on theregion’s Transportation Improve-ment Plan and some of the overallsuggestions have been incorporat-ed into the Towns’ Master Plans.

Sustainability efforts generallynecessitate coordination amongmultiple jurisdictions. In recogni-tion of this, the New YorkMetropolitan Council funded an NYUWagner Rudin Center project toexplore the factors related to inter-jurisdictional coordination on trans-portation and related land use.Based on the research findings fromseveral regional cases (includingthe two described above), a GuideBook has been developed to helpstakeholders create a strategy thatfosters inter-jurisdictional coordi-nation and enhances the likelihoodof success of transportation andrelated land use projects.

SEOUL BUS SERVICE REFORMS

10

Seoul is a prosperous city that has been rapidly growing formany years. During the past half century, the city’s populationgrew more than four-fold and real income increased at leastforty times. The growth was even more intense in the 1980s and1990s. As a consequence, the city experienced housing short-ages, a commensurate rise in the price of homes and extremetraffic congestion. Similar to what has occurred in the UnitedStates, people and businesses have moved to the suburbs, usingautomobiles more frequently and making longer trips betweentheir homes and destination. The growth of the city and suburbshas generated an increase in the number of daily trips in theSeoul Metropolitan area from 5.7 million in 1970 to 29.6 millionin 2002.

Seoul had responded to the initial surge in trips by building asubway system, opening the initial segment in 1974. By 2004,the subway had been constructed to a length of 487 km and

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

BEYOND THE REGION

BY PAUL NOUMBA UM, GYENG CHUL KIM, PATCHAREPORN TALVANNA

annual ridership had risen to 2.1 billion. Both the subway and thepreviously existing commuter rail network carry more than eightmillion people daily. However, there remain many areas of thecity and suburbs which the rail system does not reach.

Bus service had not been able to keep up with the pace of themetropolitan area’s growth and by the new millennium it wasconsidered inadequate. Within the city of Seoul, the service wasrun by loosely regulated private operators, who operated on thesame routes. Competition on many of the routes was Darwinian,with aggressive drivers eschewing safe operations in order tobeat each other to the next customer. The flat fare system alsoencouraged companies to operate shorter trips than longer ones.The suburban bus service was equally unattractive, organized asa system radiating from the city, and not offering direct connec-tions from one suburb to another. The shortcomings of the busservice were reflected in a nearly 50 percent reduction in rider-ship between 1982 and 2002.

The consequence of the expansion of the Seoul metropolitan areaand the explosion in auto trips has been substantial traffic con-

gestion. Although the SeoulMetropolitan Government (SMG),the executive branch of the City ofSeoul, made significant efforts toaddress the traffic problems,including the introduction of con-gestion pricing in the two river tun-nels serving the city in 1996, con-gestion continued to grow. By 2003,congestion costs were estimated toexceed $8 billion a year, amountingto 4% of Gross Domestic Product.

Development of Bus ServiceReforms

The SMG recognized that transitservices needed to be expandedand improved to woo people out oftheir automobiles. Expanding thesubway system to reach areas notserved by rail was not considered anoption. In 2002, construction anddebt-service for the existing systemtotaled approximately $6 billionand the SMG was furnishing a $634million subsidy to cover the subwayoperational deficit.

PAUL NOUMBA UM, is Lead Economist, Middle East & North Africa Region, The WorldBank; GYENG CHUL KIM, is Senior Research Fellow, Seoul Development Institute; andPATCHAREPORN TALVANNA is Junior Professional Associate, Finance and Private SectorDevelopment, World Bank Institute.

Picture courtesy of Sam Zimmerman

Figure 1. Exclusive Median Bus Lanes

11NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

VOLUME XI NO.1 FALL 2007

bus system, restructuring the fare system andintroducing Bus Rapid Transit Services.

Government Control of the Bus System. SMGgained control of bus routes, schedules, faresand the overall system by restructuring it intoa semi-public system. The bus companies werereorganized and licensed to provide high-qual-ity service by competing for the assignation ofbus routes instead of competing for customers.The government would benchmark theirrespective performance to stimulate increasedefficiency and effectiveness in the provision ofbus services. Safety parameters were includedin the contracts. To encourage the private busoperators to maintain the new service andsafety levels, SMG executed contractual agree-ments with each of the firms to cover their fulloperating deficits.

Reorganization of Bus Routes andEstablishment of BRT. A key component of thereforms was the reorganization of the busroutes into trunk and feeder lines and theestablishment of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) serv-ices. Redundant long distance routes werereplaced by trunk lines (BRT services) operat-ing as main arteries of the transportation sys-tem. Throughout the city’s major corridors,

The SMG focused on reforming and reorganiz-ing the region’s bus system as central toimproving the commuting environment. Indetermining the travel demands of its inhab-itants and the best means to provide servic-es, the SMG uses a participatory and consen-sus-building approach that involved all inter-ested stakeholders in the development of thebus reforms. These included bus operators,transport and city professionals, and businessand civic organizations. The result was a BusSystem Reform Plan.

In implementing the plan, the SMG creatednew departments to oversee the newservices, information, and traffic manage-ment with the goal of enhancing coordinationwithin the public transportation system. Asthe reforms advanced, the SMG established aspecial task force, the Bus System ReformCitizen Committee (BSRCC), to serve as achannel for stakeholder participation in thepreparatory stage decision making processand as a means for building consensus.

Implementation of Bus System Reforms

The resulting bus system reforms were imple-mented in 2004. Key elements of the reformsincluded SMG taking control of the regional

(Cont. on page 15)

Figure 2. Bus Rapid Transit System The NYU Wagner Rudin Center forTransportation Policy & Managementacknowledges the following entitiesfor their generous support in 2007.

RUDIN CENTER SUPPORTERS

BenefactorsMetropolitan Transportation

AuthorityThe Open Planning ProjectThe Rudin FamilyUniversity Transportation

Research Center Region 2

Sponsors and ContributorsCon EdisonDMJM HarrisBombardier TransportationNew York State Laborers’

Employers’ Cooperation and Education Trust Fund

PB

Patrons and FriendsARUPMurray BodinBooz Allen HamiltonCSXEmpire State DevelopmentGeneral Contractors

Association of New York, Inc.Hatch Mott MacDonaldMannat, Phelps & Phillips, LLPNation’s Ports New York Building CongressNew York City Economic

Development CorporationNY State Bar Association

Environmental Law SectionNYU Wagner Institute for Civil

Infrastructure Systems (ICIS)Parsons Constantine Sidamon-EristoffSTV IncorporatedURS Corporation

Project SponsorsFederal Highway AdministrationMetropolitan Transportation

AuthorityMineta Transportation InstituteNational Transit Institute,

Rutgers UniversityNew York Metropolitan

Transportation CouncilNew York State AssemblyNew York State Department of

TransportationPipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety AdministrationThe Port Authority of

New York & New JerseyVolvo Research and Educational

Foundations

12 NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

Capacity Constraints. Capacity constraints continue to worsenalong the entire corridor for both passengers and freight, affect-ing travel times, reliability, and as a result, ridership. BetweenBoston and New York City, a significant segment of the rail lineis owned and/or operated by MTA Metro-North which has signif-icant commuter traffic competing for space. Furthermore,throughout this segment of the line, track centers are too nar-row to allow for use of the tilt feature on the Acela, reducingthe potential for higher speeds. In addition, there are capacityconstraints imposed by earlier agreements which stipulated capson the number of intercity passenger trains. Between New YorkCity and Washington, DC the constraints are related to sheer vol-umes of commuter railroad traffic, especially between New YorkCity and Philadelphia, and to shortcomings associated withdeferred maintenance. In 2005, the estimated cost of bringingthe NEC to a state of good repair was roughly $5 billion, themajority of which was aimed at this section.17

Inability to Offer a Clear Alternative. In some respects, theseongoing limitations on capacity can be viewed as a reflection ofthe inability at both the state and federal levels to develop a

more comprehensive vision for theCorridor, and an unwillingness to makeappropriate investments in it. The over-all result of these constraints is aninability on the part of rail to offer aclear alternative to air and automobile(or in the case of freight, truck) travelalong the NEC. Further complicating thesituation for passenger rail is the factthat there is a comparable lack ofinvestment in urban transit and com-muter rail throughout the corridor,along with additional deferred mainte-nance and large budget deficits.Similarly for freight, links are oftenmissing between ports and key rail linesalong the corridor so trucks are stillneeded for freight connections.

How these challenges are addressed inthe coming years will spell the differ-ence between whether rail, particularlyhigh-speed intercity rail, is strength-ened in the NEC to become the much-needed backbone of a broader vision, orwhether it will continue to be plaguedby inefficiencies.

From Megalopolis…

In 1961, Jean Gottmann published hisbook and coined the phrase,Megalopolis to describe the northeastcorridor.18 Several years later, ClaibornePell published, Megalopolis Unbound,which informed the early discussions onthe NEC and the vision of what it couldbe if thought of as a larger region.19

Megalopolis, as used by Gottmann andPell, referred to a “…chain of metropol-itan areas, each of which grew around asubstantial urban nucleus.”20 At thetime, Gottmann suggested that, amongother things, a new way of governing

The Challenges

Though there is an opportunity for HSR to serve as the backbone fora new transportation vision in the NEC, several interrelated chal-lenges remain to be addressed.

Institutional Complexity. Perhaps the most obvious and long-last-ing challenge to implementation of HSR on the NEC is the multitudeof stakeholders involved. First and foremost are the multiple own-ers and operators, each with its own priorities and perceptionsabout who should bear the cost of maintaining the line and ensur-ing adequate levels of service for high-speed intercity rail, com-muter rail, and freight rail. The tension between the goals of thecommuter rail lines, the freight operators, and Amtrak has beenevident historically and remains today. Adding to the complexityinvolving institutional arrangements, the NEC is caught up in thelarger national debate regarding Amtrak and the future of interci-ty rail more broadly. While the Northeast legislators feel stronglyabout the need for maintaining and enhancing rail on the corridor,many from other parts of the country chafe at the funding direct-ed to the NEC.

From Megalopolis to Megamodal (Cont. from page 5)

Figure 2. CO2 Intensity of Passenger and Freight Transportation Modes, using C as a proxy

From: Penner, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Figures 8-4 and 8-6, respectively.

Passenger Transport

Freight Transport

From: Penner, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Figures 8-4 and 8-6, respectively;www.grida.no/ipcc/aviation/126.htm

13

might be needed to deal with the challengesthat would be faced by this megalopolisincluding (ironically) “traffic difficulties.”21

There are some interesting parallels with theoverall concept of the megalopolis and railtransportation in the United States. Just asthe United States was one of the first coun-tries to deploy high speed rail and yet quicklyfell behind its European and Asian counter-parts, the Northeast Corridor was the firstmegalopolis and yet the United States is nowbehind here too. During the past few decades,while Europe and Asia have been movingtoward broader regional and national planningand new forms of governance to allow this tooccur, the United States has moved furtheraway from such regional views and mecha-nisms, leaving planning and investmentincreasingly in the hands of state and munici-pal governments and agencies.22

The result, at least in terms of transportation,is that while large-scale projects crossing var-ious regions (and in some cases, countryborders) are being developed and implement-ed in Europe and Asia, the United States isunable to keep pace. Nowhere is this clearerperhaps than along the NEC. While high-speedtrains take just under 3 hours (soon to bereduced to 2 hours and 15 minutes), to travelthe 480 miles between Paris and Marseille,traveling between Boston and Washington, DCby rail (only 456 miles) still takes 6 hours and30 minutes.23

Rail transportation in the United States is verymuch in need of a national policy and a cor-responding regional implementation plan.Megalopolis provides the conceptual basis forpursuing such policy and the coalition thatcould be built upon this concept would have agreater sphere of influence than any onegroup could on its own. Further, such a coali-tion could provide an agglomeration ofeconomies and allow for pooling of funding forthe large projects that are needed.24

…to Megamodal

Megalopolis thus provides an important con-ceptual basis for developing new ways ofplanning and new forms of governance alongthe NEC, as well as new opportunities forfinancing. However, more is needed, especial-ly given the limitations imposed by the builturban environment that characterizes themajority of the corridor.

As we begin to think in larger terms withrespect to how our cities and regions are con-nected, we also need to be thinking abouthow our passenger and freight transportationrelate to each other, and how all the trans-portation modes relate to each other. Given

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

VOLUME XI NO.1 FALL 2007

ES: We are faced with a lot of challenges atthe same time at the MTA, whether they’reoperational, engineering, security, some-times financial; there’s always a lot of stuffgoing on. So I think there are two questions:one is the media and the second is the pub-lic’s general perception of the system. Whatis different about the MTA is the great dealof scrutiny we are under. We have a level ofmedia coverage that is extraordinary. Wehave 5 or 6 dedicated newspaper reportersand several electronic reporters assigned tous. Plus we touch 8 to 9 million New Yorkersevery day. The combination of those twothings causes us to be under an extraordinarymicroscope. In general, the press has beenfair, but there are certainly times when I feelthey have not been.

RW: I wonder if there are newsworthythings that don’t make it into the news?

ES: Sometimes. For example, we were ableto prevent a strike on MNR this summer. Wewere really on a very confrontational path,where both Senior MNR staff and labor saidwe were on a clear path to a strike, similarto what occurred in 1995. It was a difficultnegotiation. Through leadership on bothsides we reached an outcome that achieveda contract, created a new pension tierfor MNR employees, and other things benefi-cial to management. At the same time wewere able to provide a fair and equitableoutcome to our employees. In addition tothat, there was essentially a civil warbetween the two groups of unions at MNR.We were able to get a contract, end thatcivil war, and avoid a strike. It was a big dealbut got buried in the news.

Another example is the minimal reporting ofthe fact that by 2009, MTA and NJT willaccomplish a regional interoperability pilotproject with a one-seat ride from MNR terri-tory to see Jets and Giant football games inthe Meadowlands. I expect we’ll get morecoverage when we start running the trains.

RW: Last question Lee, and I want to thankyou for your time and candor: Is there anyadvice you wish someone had given youbefore you started this job?

ES: From my previous experience in the pub-lic sector, I pretty much knew what I was get-ting into. Basically, I am honored and privi-leged to be part of the MTA family again, andgrateful for the opportunity to return to pub-lic service to try and help the region moveforward.

Sander Interview (Cont. from page 3)

(Cont. on page 14)

Rudin CenterHighlights

UPCOMING EVENTS

Policymaker Breakfastwith Elliot “Lee” G. Sander

Wednesday, December 12, 20078:30 - 9:30 a.m.

Annual Leadership inTransportation Awards

Thursday, February 7, 20086:00 - 8:00 p.m.

UPCOMING PUBLICATIONS

Fare Policy RegardingRegular and/or Inflation-

related (“Programmed”) FareIncreases (forthcoming)

by Linda M. Spock

FEATURED PROJECT

Pedestrian Safety andPotential High-Risk Groups inLarge Central Cities: Issues,

Tools, and Policy.

The NYU Wagner Rudin Centerwas recently awarded agrant by the Federal HighwayAdministration for this jointstudy with the NationalAssociation of City Transpor-tation Officials, Inc. (NATCO),This project will examine broadpedestrian safety issues in largecentral cities, identify specifichigh-risk pedestrian groupsin those cities, and suggesttools, recommended practicesand performance measures forplanning, and policies thatwould be helpful to improvepedestrian safety for such high-risk populations.

For more information on eventsor publications, call 212-998-7545 or visit our website at:wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter

14

aid in opening up airspace for more long-haul planes (though thatis, indeed, part of the discussion). A megamodal approach for theNortheast Corridor challenges us to look at all transportation modesalong the entire corridor, and develop a vision for how passengersand freight can most effectively share the system (in an environ-mentally-sustainable way) while creating the highest levels ofmobility and accessibility possible for both people and goods.

To think of the entire transportation network, as an organic systemis a daunting task and, at this point, the types of metrics and datathat would be needed to make decisions using a megamodalapproach have not all been developed or gathered. Moreover, fewdecision makers are thinking along these lines. They still tend tothink of the questions as: “What should rail in the NEC?” or “Whatshould we do with the trucks on I-95?”

We need to begin asking a different question, namely “What shouldand could the entire Northeast Corridor look like?” The answer isquite different, especially if one applies a megamodal approachwhile envisioning it. With a megamodal approach applied to theNEC, one can begin to imagine a Northeast Corridor along which theinvestment has been made to develop a true high-speed intercityrail line that forms the central spine of a fully interconnected trans-portation system. At various nodes (cities) along the way, invest-ments have been made in transit (bus, rail, ferry as appropriate),in transit oriented development, and in commuter services, so thatthe vast majority of people living within the Boston-Washington, DCmegalopolis are now easily able to get from their homes to placesthey want to work or visit, with sufficient service and comfort thatthey need not use air travel, nor personal vehicles in most instanceswithin the region. At the same time, investments will perhaps havebeen made in cleaner truck technologies and truck lanes sincetrucks can now benefit from decreased passenger use of highways,and in the links between marine ports, short-sea shipping, high-ways, and rail (where still appropriate in the northeast) to createmore efficiency in freight movements as well. And, finally, with theadditional space freed up in the air, airlines will be able to focusmore on long-haul travel and opening new markets abroad that linkthe world to the northeast megalopolis.

From Megalopolis to Megamodal (Cont. from page 13)

scarce resources, it is no longer sufficient to look at the feasibil-ity of beginning or increasing service on a particular mode oftransportation. We need to begin thinking beyond intermodalism(which can mean linking as few as two types of transportationmodes) and multimodalism (which just refers to the presence ofmore than one mode of transportation), to thinking of our trans-

portation network as an entire organic system — in essence, amegamodal approach — in which decisions taken in onearea are likely to have an impact (either positive or negative) inothers.

With a megamodal approach, one no longer thinks about how railbest connects to transit services or even how intercity rail can

Figure 3. U.S. Petroleum Use by Sector, 2005

From: U.S. DOT, BTS, Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2006, http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2006/html/chapter_02/table_k_03.html

1. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; U.S. Conference of Mayors, U.S. Metro Economies: GMP – The Engines of America’s Growth (Lexington, MA: Global Insight, Inc.), 2006, Table 1;Regional Plan Association and the Penn Institute for Urban Research, “Northeast Climate and Competitiveness Summit,” March 2, 2007, http://www.america2050.org/2007/03/north-east_corridor_mobilty_sum.html (accessed 5/7/07).

2. University of Pennsylvania, Reinventing Megalopolis: The Northeast Megaregion (Philadelphia: UPenn School of Design, Spring 2005).3. Arianne Bernard, “International Business: Research Model of French Train Beats Record, Hitting 357 Miles an Hour,” The New York Times (4 April 2007): C-4; Allison L. C. de Cerreño

and Shishir Mathur, High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success – Part 2, MTI Report 06-03 (San José, CA: MTI, November 2006), p. 87.4. David Schrank and Tim Lomax, The 2005 Urban Mobility Report (College Station, TX: TTI, May 2005), Table 2.5. Neil J. Pedersen, “Rail Capacity and Infrastructure Requirements.” Written Testimony Submitted by the I-95 Corridor Coalition to the Surface Transportation Board, Hearing Record

on Rail Capacity and Infrastructure Requirements (April 11, 2007), p. 4.6. U.S. DOT, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Terminal Area Forecast Summary: Fiscal Years 2006-2025, FAA-APO-07-1 (Washington, DC: FAA, March 2007), p. 9. 7. U.S. DOT, FAA, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System, 2007-2025: An Analysis of Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future (FACT 2)

(Washington, DC: FAA, May 2007), pp. 17-19.8. Airports Council International, “Cargo Traffic for Past 12 Months: 12 Months Ending February 2007,” http://www.airports.org/cda/aci/display/main/aci_content.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-

54-4819_9_2__ (accessed 6/4/07). 9. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook, 2007, DOE/EIA-0383 (Washington, DC: EIA, February 2007), Table 18.10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Greenhouse Gases,” http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html (accessed 6/5/07).11. See, for example, Diane Bailey, et al., Harboring Pollution: The Dirty Truth About U.S. Ports (NY: National Resources Defense Council, March 2004).12. Davis and Diegel, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 26-2007, p. 12-1.13. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2006 (Washington, DC: BTS, December 2006),

http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2006/html/chapter_02/table_k_03.html (accessed 6/4/07).14. U.S. Department of Energy, EIA, Annual Energy Outlook, 2007, p. 44.15. Ibid.16. Ibid.17. U.S. DOT, Office of the Inspector General, Reauthorization of Intercity Passenger Rail and Amtrak,” Testimony before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, U.S. Senate – Statement of the Honorable Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, CC-2005-030 (Washington, DC: GAO, April 21, 2005), p. 9.

18. Jean Gottmann, Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States (NY: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1961).19. Claiborne Pell, Megalopolis Unbound: The Supercity and the Transportation of Tomorrow (NY: Praeger, 1966).20. Jean Gottmann, “Megalopolis or the Urbanization of the Northern Seaboard,” Economic Geography 33, 3 (July 1957): 189.21. Ibid., p. 194.22. Ibid., p. 3.23. “High-Speed Rail Give Short-Haul Air a Run for the Money in Europe, with More Flexible Travel, Greater Comfort, Lower Environmental Impact,” PRNewswire (April 20, 2007),

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/04-20-2007/0004570197&EDATE=FRI+Apr+20+2007,+10:48+AM (accessed 5/10/07).24. Paula Dowell, “Multi-state/Jurisdictional Freight Transportation Planning,” Presented for the FHWA Talking Freight Seminar, 12/15/04.

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

15NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL

VOLUME XI NO.1 FALL 2007

exclusive median bus lanes replaced the oldcurbside lanes. The trunk lines were con-nected to feeder lines at nodes serving localneighborhoods. The number of bus routeswas increased by 25 percent to 462 routes,and the additional buses were added to thesystem for a total of 8,306 buses, extendingthe system’s reach and accessibility. A colorsystem was established to clearly distin-guish for the customer the type of routebeing operated. At the same time, the cor-rection of winding and overlapping routescontributed to a decrease in the averageroute length from 20.3km to 18.5km.

Improvements were made to bus depots(stations) focusing on the customerenvironment. These included new shelters,shorter transfer distances between busroutes, color-paved surfaces to easilyidentify bus stops, anti-slip surfaces,and loading platforms compatible with lowfloor buses.

Restructured Fare System. The old flat-fare “modal” system was discarded andreplaced by a new integrated fare systembased on the total distance traveled. Forpassengers traveling between Seoul and thesuburbs, the fare is now based on the totaldistance traveled instead of the transporta-tion mode used. Within Seoul, the fare forbus service starts at 800 Korean Won (KRW)for the first 10 km and increases by 100KRW for increments of 5 km. The base farealso includes up to four free-transferswhich can be made within a one and one-half and hour period, and can be applied toboth bus and subway use. As part of thereforms, a smart card was introduced thatprovided incentives for riders through easeof payment, free-transfer privileges, andbenefits for shoppers.

Commensurate Transit-friendlyImprovements

In addition to the transit improvements,the SMG instituted other policies to dis-courage driving. They included increasedtaxes on gasoline and diesel fuels, raisingpublic parking, and reducing parkingspace requirements for new commercialand office buildings.

Initial Results

The implementations of the Bus SystemReforms in 2004 were incrementaland took time. Initially, there wassubstantial confusion among customersand there were start-up issues withtechnology. Eventually, these issues dissi-pated and the reforms were successfullyimplemented. In the following year, busridership increased approximately 10 per-cent, to an average of 5 million customersper day. The average bus speeds alsoincreased from 13 km/h to 17.3 km/h,while bus traffic accidents declinednearly 25 percent.

The reforms have come with a price, analmost three-fold increase in subsidies tothe private bus companies. The higherlevel of subsidies required probably stemsfrom ineffective oversight of the costs ofthe private bus operators, who have beenable to claim reimbursement of costsincurred without evidencing productivitygains. The sharp increase in bus subsidyneeds is alarming, but should be consid-ered in light of substantial improvementsin the overall quality of the bus services,including new buses, and new shelters atbus stops. These costs also should becompared to the alternative and moresubstantial cost of expanding the Seoulsubway system and the even larger oper-ating subsidies which would have beenrequired. Nevertheless, SMG is exploringoptions to induce greater efficiency in theprovision of bus service.

Despite these high costs, the Bus SystemReforms have been highly successful. Thechallenge for SMG in the coming years willbe to continue the reforms and sustainthe results over time.

Seoul BRT (Cont. from page 11)

COUNCIL ONTRANSPORTATION

Representing major private andnonprofit sector organizations, theCouncil on Transportation is abipartisan group created by theNYU Wagner Rudin Center, commit-ted to improving transportation inthe downstate New York region,especially in New York City.

Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff,Chairman

Richard AndersonRegina ArmstrongKevin CorbettAllison C. de CerreñoJohn DionisioBeverly DolinskyJohn FalcocchioAlan FriedbergWilliam GalliganMark GortonGregory HodkinsonJosé Holguín-VerasMike HorodniceanuArthur Imperatore, Jr.Brian KetchamCarolyn KonheimFrancis McArdleJames MeliusMitchell MossRobert PaaswellHenry PeyrebruneSteven PolanRichard RavitchLucius RiccioWilliam RudinGene RussianoffRoss SandlerSamuel SchwartzDom ServedioKate SlevinMarilyn TaylorBen ThompsonChristopher WardEd WattRoberta WeisbrodMichael WeissRobert YaroRae ZimmermanJeff Zupan

“Competition on many

routes was Darwinian,

with aggressive drivers

eschewing safe opera-

tions in order to beat

each other to the

next customer.”

NYU

• R

ober

t F.

Wag

ner

Scho

ol o

f Pu

blic

Ser

vice

295

Lafa

yett

e St

reet

, 2nd

Floo

rN

ew Y

ork,

NY

1001

2

NO

N P

RO

FIT

OR

G.

U.S

. P

OS

TA

GE

PA

ID

NE

W Y

OR

K,

NY

PE

RM

ITN

O.

7931

16

On October 4, 2007, founding members of theNYU Wagner Rudin Center's new Director'sAdvisory Board met for the first time to dis-cuss the future of the Center. The Board willbe helping the Center's Director, Allison C. deCerreño, chart a direction and strategy forcontinuing its mission while pursuing fulfill-ment of a vision that will further strengthenand institutionalize the Center in years tocome.

Founding members include:

Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, ChairOf Counsel, Lacher & Lovell-Taylor

Mark BoddenAdministrator/Program Director, Rudin Foundation

Terence BoyleAssociate, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.

Jane ChmielinskiPresident and COO, DMJM Harris

Rod DiridonExecutive Director, Mineta Transportation Institute

Emil FrankelEmil H. Frankel LLC

Alan FriedbergPresident, Alan Friedberg Development Co.

Jerry GottesmanChairman of the Board, Edison Properties

Robert PaaswellDirector, Region II University Transportation Research Center, City College, CUNY

Rogan Kersh, ex officioAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs, NYURobert F. Wagner School of Public Service

The Center and its staff are apreciative oftheir help and very much looking forward toworking closely with them in the comingmonths.

NEW DIRECTOR’S ADVISORY BOARDMEETS FOR THE FIRST TIME

Mark Bodden; Robert Paaswell; and, Emil Frankel

Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff; Robert Paaswell; Jane Chmielinski; Allison C. de Cerreño; TerenceBoyle; Rod Diridon; and, Alan Friedberg

Jerry Gottesman