This week, the Refund Transit Coalition, a group of transit advocates, workers and supporters, including the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transportation Equity Network, released an interesting report. It alleges that a major cause of many recent fare hikes and service cuts is due to interest swaps: financial arrangements that transit systems across the U.S. made with banks on a percentage of their debts, which ended up working in favor of the banks when interest rates plummeted in 2008 and were kept artificially low because of the recession.
We got wind of the report, “Riding the Gravy Train – How Wall Street is Bankrupting our Public Transit Agencies,” through WNYC, which ran a story on how the deal has caused the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (N.Y. MTA) to lose almost $114 million a year and how the agency will likely continue to lose money on the deals for the next 30 years.
Since the transit systems need to pay for operations, they have to raise fares and cut service to make up for the substantial losses, which are further exacerbating budgets alongside lower tax revenues. Adding insult to injury, many of these Wall Street banks, which were bailed out with taxpayer money, the report pointed out, “use their profits to lobby against laws that aim to curb their abuses, to create and inflate the next economic bubble, to find ways to avoid paying their fair share in taxes and pay out billions of dollars in bonuses.”
Other affected systems, according to the report, include the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, with $19.6 million in annual swap losses; the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and the City of Philadelphia, with $39 million in losses; and the Chicago Transit Agency, which suffered the second-highest loss after N.Y. MTA, hemorrhaging $88.2 million.
The report also noted that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), another system burned by the deal, has “the highest debt burden of any U.S. transit agency,” and nearly every dollar MBTA collects in fares goes toward paying down the debt. “This crushing debt burden has helped contribute to a FY 2013 deficit of $160 million,” the report adds.
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this claim about how Wall Street’s high-risk practices have negatively impacted transit. Last October, during the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement, a union official said that he joined the protests because of how these practices were impacting N.Y. MTA’s budget.
However, a N.Y. MTA official disputed the union's calculations to WNYC. He said the swaps “brought predictability to the authority's budget, which needs to be balanced each year,” that the comparison of transactions the agency entered into years ago with “risky variable rate debt right now” is “misleading" and that the swaps enabled the authority to save $248 million.
WNYC also pointed out, though, that the report indicated that was true only until 2007, “when the arrangement allowed the MTA to pay off its debt at nearly a full point below interest rates that were relatively high.”
Meanwhile, whether or not the report is right about the degree of impact the deals have had, the fare increases and service cuts continue to weigh down transit systems, as they struggle daily with rising ridership and less money from local, state and federal sources and are facing yet another transportation reauthorization bill deadline at the end of this month. It just makes me wonder: can transit agencies claim that they’re “too big to fail?”
In case you missed it...
Read our METRO blog, "Courting the next generation of transit riders" here.
While PTC may have just recently entered the consciousness of the public at-large, it has been an issue for freight and commuter rail systems since Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) (P.L. 110-432) in 2008 following the collision between a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles. Since that time, rail organizations have been working toward meeting the federally-mandated PTC implementation deadline of December 31, 2015. With less than six months to go, several commuter rail systems have said that, not only will they not meet the deadline, they will need several more years before having full PTC implementation on their trains.
Disruptive technologies and the new era of information sharing are helping to evolve and advance public transportation in our nation’s greatest cities. Nearly 300 mayors and government officials convened in San Francisco June 19-22 for the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 83rd Annual Meeting, featuring remarks from President Obama and former U.S. Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I was invited to speak in front of these influential government leaders to discuss “Technology and the Transformation of Urban Transportation.” This article will give readers an inside look at the conversation.
In times of disaster or tragedy, public transit agencies are frequently called upon to assist their communities and other transportation organizations. In case of fire, evacuation or accident, buses may be used to shelter or transport the displaced or injured, or serve as a respite site for first responders.
As a city, Leipzig is an excellent example of the German principals of transport planning and service as well as eastern Germany’s long history. The city has benefitted from large amounts of investment in infrastructure over the years since German reunification and most transport systems seem to be new or rebuilt, expanded and in a very good current state of repair. The most notable element in the transport mix is inevitably the enormous and historic main railway station, which is one of the largest, but certainly not busiest, in Europe.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s Regional (commuter) Rail system was inherited from the Pennsylvania and Reading Railroads and the infrastructure in many sections of the system has been serving the Philadelphia area for more than 100 years. Fifteen years ago, overhead catenary system (OCS) failures were a common occurrence on SEPTA Regional Rail, a result of fatigue cracks and wear. The all too common OCS failures were frustrating for SEPTA customers who occasionally found it difficult to depend on train service for their travels and for SEPTA, whose crews were constantly working to repair and maintain the system.