Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYContact PeopleCassandra BenjaminSenior Program OfficerCharles and Helen Schwab Foundationcbenjamin@schwabfoundation.org(650) 655-2211Vera de VeraDirector, Western Regional OfficeFannie Mae Foundationvdevera@fanniemaefoundation.org(626) 396-5370Radhika K. FoxSenior Program AssociatePolicyLinkradhika@policylink.org(510) 663-4324Doug ShoemakerDeputy DirectorNon-Profit Housing Association of NorthernCalifornia (NPH)doug@nonprofithousing.org(415) 989-8160Dianne SpauldingExecutive DirectorNon-Profit Housing Association of NorthernCalifornia (NPH)dianne@nonprofithousing.org(415) 989-8160III. B. ENSURING A FAIR FARE:TRANSIT ADVOCACY INDIVERSE REGIONSFunders Highlighted:Catholic Campaign for Human DevelopmentAlfred P. Sloan Foundation“People are generally understanding of the needfor increased revenues. They are not looking for afree ride—just a fair one.”— Beat the Fare Increase Campaign, BostonFaced with budget shortfalls, transit agencies acrossthe nation have raised fares, reduced the frequency ofservice, eliminated routes, delayed capital projects,and implemented hiring freezes and staff reductions. 45The transit agencies of New York City, Boston, andBaltimore have pursued some of these options. Thesemeasures have disparate, negative impacts on transitdependentriders, particularly low-income andminority communities. This profile looks at fundersand community organizations who have addressedthis increasingly common regional transit equity issuein New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland.Project ProfileNew York CityThe Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA), anagency of the state of New York, is the parentorganization of New York City Transit. MTA NewYork City Transit is the largest agency in the MTAregional transportation network, which also includesMTA Staten Island Railway (part of NYC Transit’sDepartment of Subways), MTA Long Island RailRoad, MTA Long Island Bus, MTA Metro-NorthRailroad, MTA Bridges and Tunnels, and MTACapital Construction. In 2002, the MTA proposedraising its base fare from $1.50 to $2.00, raising theprice of its “unlimited ride” passes, and reducingservices. The MTA proposed this increase, its firstsince 1995, because of a claimed $2 billion operatingdeficit. This fare increase was opposed by theStraphangers Campaign.45A recent annual survey by the American Public TransportationAssociation showed that 90 percent of large transit agencies hadimplemented fare increases and 35 percent of all agencies were reducingfrequency of service.95Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities
The Straphangers Campaign was founded in 1979 bythe New York Public Interest Research Group(NYPIRG), which serves as an advocate for the almostseven million daily users of the New York City transitsystem (buses, subways). Previous Straphanger effortsresulted in free subway-bus transfers and the abovementioned“unlimited ride” passes. Importantly, theStraphangers had a strong record of analyzing MTAdata and using that data to produce numerous reportson the quality of the New York City transit system.Straphangers’ personnel (some of whom have workedfor the group for over 20 years) have significantexperience reviewing MTA budgets, but could notidentify exactly where the claimed shortfall originated.Doubting the accuracy of the MTA’s projections, inlate 2002, the Straphangers wrote the Comptroller forthe state of New York and the Comptroller for NewYork City to express the group’s concerns and torequest that each office audit the MTA.In April 2003, the audits were released, finding thatthe MTA exaggerated its 2003 operating deficit byshifting $500 million in revenue forward to 2004. Inresponse, the Straphangers and other groups filed suitagainst the MTA. After an initial victory at the NewYork State Supreme Court, the Straphangers groupwas defeated in two subsequent appeals—the lattertaking place in August 2003. This loss, combinedwith the MTA’s May 2003 approval of the proposedfare increase, effectively ended the Straphangers’effort to block the 2003 fare increase. Still, theStraphangers achieved a number of successes, mostlyby way of enhancing access to the MTA’s budgetingprocess. Whereas the MTA ordinarily released anannual budget in November and voted on it inDecember, budgets are now more regularly releasedand five-year projections are now available.This new, greater transparency proved important as itenabled the Straphangers to anticipate and respond toanother proposed fare increase in mid-2004. Then,the MTA proposed to raise fares on passes andinitially proposed some significant service reductions.Since that proposal, Straphangers’ efforts have focusedon stopping the increase, as well as turning attentionto state level decisions which impact transit funding.BostonMeanwhile, in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority (MBTA) operates thecountry’s oldest subway system and servesapproximately 600,000 customers with 1.2 milliontrips a day. In 2004, the MBTA proposed to increasebus fares from $0.75 to $1.00 and to increase subwayfares from $1.00 to $1.25. This followed a similarincrease in 2001-2002. Before 2001-2002, theMBTA had not increased fares since 1990-1991.In response, a campaign known as Beat the FareIncrease was formed by two Boston-area groups: theTransit Riders Union (TRU) and On the Move:Greater Boston Transportation Justice Coalition(Coalition). A strategy committee—composed ofAlternatives for Community & Environment (ACE, afounding memberof the Coalition),Bowdoin StreetHealth Center,Conservation LawFoundation,Egleston SquareNeighborhoodAssociation, FourCorners ActionCoalition,MassachusettsPublic InterestResearch Group(MASSPIRG), Sierra Club, TRU, and the“As fares increase, ridershipdecreases because morepeople with cars will chooseto drive … [leaving] theremaining transit riders toshoulder the cost of a moreexpensive system.”— Beat the Fare IncreaseWashington Street Corridor Coalition—reached outto the community and planned and implemented thecampaign. The campaign divided its goals into fourareas: Public Review, Clean Air, Revenue, andStopping the Fare Increase.Beat the Fare Increase literature noted that, “As faresincrease, ridership decreases because more peoplewith cars will choose to drive … [leaving] theremaining transit riders to shoulder the cost of amore expensive system.” In effect, it argued, “Thisfare increase represents another tax on workingpeople, and an unfair tax,” because the fare increasegreatly exceeded broader increases in the cost ofliving and gasoline (approximately 40 percent since1990). This led the campaign to charge anotherinequity, a “continued policy of subsidizing drivers ata much higher rate than public transit riders.”The Beat the Fare Increase campaign demanded:• The MBTA to take all steps to increase non-farerevenues before raising fares;• An Automated Fare Collection system that willprovide accurate ridership counts, a basis forsound accounting, fiscal planning, and systemREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 96
Page 1 and 2:
Stories of Philanthropic Leadership
Page 3 and 4:
Signs of Promise:Stories of Philant
Page 5 and 6:
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth
Page 7 and 8:
(II. B.)(II. C.)Turning Neighborhoo
Page 9 and 10:
PART I:IntroductionThe Purpose of t
Page 11 and 12:
social justice issues as they relat
Page 13 and 14:
PART II:Perspectives on Advancing R
Page 15 and 16:
peer work, we can reestablish a sig
Page 17 and 18:
Annie E. Casey FoundationBaltimore,
Page 19 and 20:
neighborhoods into healthy ones—g
Page 21 and 22:
Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation
Page 23 and 24:
Section 1:Promoting Equitable Publi
Page 25 and 26:
I. A. BUILDING POWER AND GIVINGVOIC
Page 27 and 28:
policy advocates. In 2002, Milwauke
Page 29 and 30:
in Los Angeles, Ford’s Anthony no
Page 31 and 32:
I. B. PROMOTING COALITIONSTO ADVANC
Page 33 and 34:
Yet the interpersonal dynamics of c
Page 35 and 36:
guidelines. “Many of the member o
Page 37 and 38:
Funder InterestThe EPA supported th
Page 39 and 40:
I. D. DEMONSTRATING THESTRUGGLE FOR
Page 41 and 42:
Richmond, Calif.The second regional
Page 43 and 44:
through policy reform at the local
Page 45 and 46:
I. E. BUILDING COALITIONTHROUGH KNO
Page 47 and 48:
organizing project, the Connecticut
Page 49 and 50:
and businesses are quantified in a
Page 51 and 52: I. G. REVITALIZING WHILEASSURING DI
Page 53 and 54: In the late 1990s, the city of Albu
Page 55 and 56: I. H. A TRAVEZ DE LA FRONTERA:LAND
Page 57 and 58: The International Community Foundat
Page 59 and 60: I. I. MOBILIZING ACTION FORREGIONAL
Page 61 and 62: To meet all of these objectives, th
Page 63 and 64: efforts. And with each public plann
Page 65 and 66: pattern of disproportionate transpo
Page 67 and 68: Clinica de la Raza identify this cr
Page 69 and 70: Contact PeopleCarl AnthonyActing Di
Page 71 and 72: Section 2:Making All Neighborhoods
Page 73 and 74: II. A. REACHING BEYONDHOUSING TO IM
Page 75 and 76: A local resident receives the keys
Page 77 and 78: East Baltimore community and the Jo
Page 79 and 80: example, adjacent to the EBDI area,
Page 81 and 82: II. C. YIELDING REGIONALBENEFITS TH
Page 83 and 84: is using transit-oriented developme
Page 85 and 86: financing and innovative, forward-t
Page 87 and 88: The Row House Community Development
Page 89 and 90: II. E. COUNTERING THE PERFECTSTORM:
Page 91 and 92: funded community programs, includin
Page 93 and 94: housing developments and commercial
Page 95 and 96: owned enterprises, totaling $8.5 mi
Page 97 and 98: LOAN GUARANTEESSection 3:Connecting
Page 99 and 100: III. A. MAKING HOUSING ANOPPORTUNIT
Page 101: A new report from the National Hous
Page 105 and 106: Funder InterestThe Straphangers Cam
Page 107 and 108: or increase poverty. Whether direct
Page 109 and 110: The Regional Plan Association then
Page 111 and 112: multi-stakeholder effort composed o
Page 113 and 114: director with LISC. No one set of s
Page 115 and 116: 12 western Louisville neighborhoods
Page 117 and 118: III. E. UNITING THREE STATESFOR ONE
Page 119 and 120: increased their personal wealth by
Page 121 and 122: summary evaluation of MSDI found th
Page 123 and 124: method alone was strong enough to m
Page 125 and 126: consistent body of work. The Counci
Page 127 and 128: 3) Issues Need to be ConnectedThe f
Page 129 and 130: PART V:Glossary of TermsThe terms d
Page 131 and 132: Regional and neighborhood equity. A
Page 133 and 134: Tijuana River Reserve, California:h
Page 135 and 136: Sargent Shriver National Center on
Page 137: 1500 San Remo Avenue • Suite 249
show all

Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?