The news flew fast and furious yesterday following the Spitzer press conference and the MTA’s announcement that they would be scaling back the fare hike. When the dust settled, Elizabeth Benjamin at The Daily News’ Daily Politics blog came away with steller coverage. She had three posts — here, here and here — with reaction from, respectively, those praising Sptizer, those who think he didn’t go far enough and Mayor Bloomberg.

With all of this information flowing our way, it’s easy to lose sight of what mattered in the day’s news. The bottom line is that the public came away with something of a victory as the MTA announced it would keep the base fare at $2; scale back increases on Unlimited Ride Metrocards and toll increases; and probably throw out plans to implement peak and off-peak fares on New York City Transit-controlled buses and subways. I see three things wrong with this outcome, and the last culminates in an analogy to the five-cent fare, a historical era in New York transit that still reverberates today.

Who benefits from this decreased fare hike proposal?

Click here to keep reading. It’s well worth it

In a surprising turn of events, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has announced plans to scale back the proposed fare hike. The announcement, coming on the heals of a call from New York State Gov. Eliot Spitzer, lessens the fare burden carried by the millions of New Yorkers who rely on the subway each day.

The decision by MTA CEO and Executive Director Elliot “Lee” Sander and MTA Board Chair Dale Hemmerdinger, announced in a press release, follow a month of fare hike hearings in which the public spoke out against the planned increases and an updated budget which included an unexpected end-of-the-year windfall of $220 million.

The MTA plans to return this $220 million to the riders over the next two years by reducing the propsed 6.5 percent fare and toll increases. The base fare for subway and bus riders will hold steady at $2.00 a ride, a point Gov. Spitzer stressed this morning. It is anticipated that Unlimited Ride Metorcards will still see a slight price increase.

“I believe this is a compromise that helps our customers without compromising our fiduciary responsibility,” Hemmerdinger said, “and I look forward to discussing it further with my fellow Board members.”

With the extra money, the MTA can hold that base fare steady and still cover their costs. While the details won’t emerge on the compromise for a few weeks, I anticipate that many of the provisions in the current fare hike proposal – notably a reduction in the pay-per-ride discounts – will still go into effect. But the base will remain at its current levels for now.

Both Sander and Hemmerdinger stressed the role the public played in achieving this end result. I’m sure some back-room arm-twisting by a governor in need of a public win had something to do with it as well. Additionally, the two MTA officials seemed to suggest that more state money would flow their way in order to close their projected deficits. Sounds good to me.

“The MTA is grateful to Governor Spitzer for his commitment to funding public transit and our four-year financial plan,” Sander said. “We are glad that revenues came in high enough to allow us to limit the fare increase and still address $6 billion in deficits over the next four years.”

It’s the season of fare hike grandstanding for public officials. Yesterday, Andrew Saul, MTA Vice Chair and Republican Congressional hopeful, announced his politically expedient opposition to the fare hike. Today, our embattled Governor Eliot Spitzer has done the same. While this seems like a move to shore up his waning popularity, Spitzer is employing a rational that I think is fatally flawed to justify his opposition to the fare hike.

As many news outlets have reported (City Room, Daily Politics – Spitzer held a press conference and issued a statement outlining his opposition to the proposed hike:

I have been closely following the public hearings on the potential fare hike by the MTA and I’ve listened to the public’s serious concerns about paying more, especially while times are tight. At the same time, I am acutely aware of the need for state agencies and authorities to be fiscally responsible, pay down debt and plan for the future. So as the MTA considered a fare hike, my chief concern was making sure that fiscal responsibility was observed and that all avenues were explored before imposing an added burden on the public.

As the MTA updated its budget forecasts, their balance sheet yielded an additional $220 million. Based on the current economic climate that has so many New Yorkers feeling squeezed, it seemed only proper that this amount be returned to the riders. I am therefore calling on the MTA to use these funds to reduce the proposed fare and toll increase.

As City Room notes, Spitzer is talking solely about the $2 base fare here. He simply wants the other increases to be toned down a bit. However, considering that the Metrocard Vending Machines accept increases that are multiples of $0.25, the MTA can’t really lower the anticipated fare hike. While mentioning the economics of the current day, Spitzer ignores the environment. The MTA should be raising toll rates, in my opinion, to discourage driving and fund mass transit options along those road routes.

But that’s not the big flaw. Rather, Spitzer’s belief that the $220 million represents a satisfactory amount of money for the MTA ignores the MTA’s own budget projections. The MTA right now is predicting potential deficits of over $4 billion between now and 2011 if they don’t raise the fares. Even if those estimates are wrong on a magnitude of $220 million a year, that steal leaves the authority approximately $3 billion in debt because they have to repay outstanding debts from when the Authority refused to raise the fares in the 1970s. Have we not learned our history lessons yet?

Until someone else can come up with a long-term plan for the MTA’s economic health that allows for system growth and financial strength, I will support this fare hike. To me, it seems that Spitzer is another public official speaking out against something that he knows is inevitable in order to curry favor with a public that has largely turned against him.

Give us a solution or stay silent. Enough with the pandering at the expense of the MTA. The Authority is too important the long-term success of New York City to become a political pawn again.

Andrew Saul is the Vice Chairman of the MTA Board. As such, you would imagine that Mr. Saul cares deeply about the upcoming fare hike. You may even believe that Mr. Saul would go out of his way to attend the fare hike meetings. And you would be wrong.

Saul, we learned last week, was one of the three MTA board members who couldn’t make it to a single fare hike hearing. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that Saul had already decided to the support the fare hike no matter what. Well, guess what? You’re wrong again.

In what I can only call a surprise announcement, Andrew Saul, according to The Daily News, plans to vote against the fare hike. Pete Donohue has more:

“I am against this fare hike proposal,” board Vice Chairman Andrew Saul declared. “A fare increase is always a hardship and the last option I consider to cover budget shortfalls.”

Instead of seeking higher fares from millions of daily subway, bus and commuter train riders, Saul – who also heads the board’s finance committee – said he would continue to pursue savings within the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

He also pledged support to lawmakers seeking more mass transit funding from Gov. Spitzer and the state Legislature. Spitzer unveils his first budget and the Legislature reconvenes in January.

Great. This is good news for opponents of the hike even if the fare increases seem inevitable right now.

But I have to wonder why Saul didn’t go to the fare hikes to lend his support to the public testifying against the fare hikes. If he’s so convinced that asking the legislature for more money and internal belt-tightening can cover the multi-billion-dollar gap that the MTA is projected, why didn’t he say so on the record during one of the hearings?

Maybe it’s because Saul, who is running for Congress in New York’s 19th District, knows that the MTA needs the funds from the hike but doesn’t find it politically expedient to voice his support for an increase that will inevitably pass muster with the MTA board. I don’t think his MetroNorth-riding constituents would look too kindly upon a vote for the fare hike during a hotly-contested Congressional race. Hmmm.