At the end of last week on a Friday during the summer, a few anonymous MTA officials dropped a story on Pete Donohue. The MTA, they said, is not-so-quietly considering a fare hike for 2009 to meet operating budget deficits that will exceed tens of millions of dollars.
On Wednesday, with MTA CEO and Executive Director Lee Sander testifying in front of the New York State Assembly’s Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, agency officials dropped any pretense of anonymity and flat-out toward the gathered assembly members that a 2009 fare hike will be necessary if the agency doesn’t see more money flowing its way.
Times reporters William Neuman and Jeremy Peters tell the sad but expected tale:
The executive director, Elliot G. Sander, said that the transportation authority faced an operating deficit of as much as $500 million to $700 million next year and that it would “have no option” but to raise fares in 2009 if it did not receive considerable outside financial assistance.
“Our hope is for additional support from Albany and other partners,” Mr. Sander said, speaking in Albany at a hearing of the State Assembly’s Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions. “If we do not have funding from our outside partners, then the only recourse the M.T.A. has is to raise fares, engage in service cutbacks and cutting staff.”
The authority previously proposed raising fares in 2010, as part of what it said would be a series of regular, moderate increases every two years. But an increase next year would disrupt that initiative before it even started.
Now, MTA haters will be quick to unleash familiar refrains: The MTA has no budget accountability; the MTA has no idea how to balance its books. And while I’m not usually one to leap to the MTA’s rescue, it’s clear from Sander’s testimony that this was a largely unexpected fiscal problem (and one that could have been averted through congestion pricing).
As I’ve noted before, the MTA’s expected revenue from the real estate tax is nearly $100 million below expected levels, and as Sander said today, their fuel expenditures are already 17 percent over budget. Oil prices are heading in only one direction these days, and it isn’t down.
So the MTA has a valid excuse. Now though the ball is firmly in the Assembly’s court. During the congestion pricing debate, numerous elected representatives — and, most vocally, Richard Brodsky — told the MTA that, to get more money from the state, all Lee Sander had to do was ask. As Jay Gallagher at The Journal-News’ Politics on the Hudson blog reported yesterday, that’s exactly what Sander did. “I am asking the Legislature and the governor for more financial support,’’ he said to Brodsky’s committee.
So what say you, Mr. Brodsky? The MTA has laid out its case, and the city’s vital transportation authority has found itself up the proverbial creek with nary a paddle in sight. Will Brodsky keep his word or will he just renege on yet another transit-related promise in the area?
Fare hike 2009, here we come.
8 comments
Now, MTA haters will be quick to unleash familiar refrains: The MTA has no budget accountability; the MTA has no idea how to balance its books. And while I’m not usually one to leap to the MTA’s rescue, it’s clear from Sander’s testimony that this was a largely unexpected fiscal problem (and one that could have been averted through congestion pricing).
You stole my thunder and then eliminated it with logic.
Nuts.
Brodsky, Shelly……I’m watching you! Will you cough up the dough, especially after killing congestion pricing.
The next fare hike will have your names written all over it.
How quickly we forget. Congestion pricing was advertised as the source of money for NEW transit improvements, not as filler for budget gaps. This is exactly what would have happened if congestion pricing was passed- the money would simply be used to pad existing projects and justify the continuous MTA inefficiences and waste. The long term outcome would be the same as with bridge tolls for Staten Island residents- we pay, and the MTA subsidizes Metro-North rides for Wall Street executives from Connecticut.
[…] while I’m no fan of Richard Brodsky or Hakeem Jeffries, these two Assemblymen are right to question the Yankee Stadium funding plans. […]
Excuse me, Boris, but the entire ride of a Staten Island driver to Manhattan is free, except for one bridge.
Do you mean to say I only have to pay for the Verrazano when I return from Manhattan? This is true, but it is considered a two-way toll- one I can’t avoid, unlike those who only use Staten Island to get to other places. (They would take the Verrazano in the free direction and then return through Manhattan, also for free).
Staten Islanders are the only NYC residents who can’t drive to (and return from) another borough for free. Yet we have the fewest public transportation options! As currently implemented, strategies of charging cars for the purpose of funding public transit do not benefit Staten Island residents. Basically, Staten Islanders are lumped together with the “foreigners” (albeit we pay a lower rate) who are made to pay to support other peoples’ public transit.
Staten Islanders are also the only NYC residents who have free public transit, in the form of the Staten Island Railway (free unless you exit at St. George) and the Staten Island Ferry. As for the Verrazano, if I remember correctly it was Staten Island politicians who lobbied for moving the toll gates from Staten Island to Brooklyn.
Even car use is untaxed, except at some bridges. This isn’t just for Staten Islanders: the most egregious free ride for drivers is the Harlem River bridges, which ensure people from Westchester can drive into Manhattan and pollute Harlem without paying. And of course, local travel by car is completely free, despite the significant externalities involved.
Hehe, I’m not sure if we agree or disagree here. You are right about the SIR and the ferry, but the idea was to align these services with the “one city, one fare” strategy. They are free the same way bus-to-subway transfers are free. Like most other transit services in NYC, they are oriented towards commuters who sooner or later pay the $2 fare. I didn’t grow up on the Island, but I suppose that those who did may find some use for free local travel on the SIR.
A sort of reverse congestion pricing plan of free riding into Manhattan but paying if you want to go around it is, certainly, a problem.
Local travel by car is not completely free because of the gas tax.