Over the weekend, as part of their campaign to convince the MTA to use stimulus dollars as a quick fix for most of its budget gap, James Vacca, Christine Quinn and Gene Russianoff penned a Daily News op-ed putting forth their plan. By now, we know the argument: It is legally permissible for the MTA to use 10 percent of its stimulus dollars for operating costs. That contribution of around $120 million plus the $50 million in operating expenses reserved for pay-as-you-go capital needs would be enough to take the service cuts off the table while the city and state should work out a funding plan for the Student MetroCard program.

On the surface, their proposal doesn’t sound like a bad one, but I’ve had my reservations. Without exhausting the other options first, I don’t support taking money that should be used for capital resources or the PAYGO fund to cover operating deficits. Furthermore, having spent some time examining Transit’s service cuts proposals, I believe many of these cuts should stay as is. It simply doesn’t make sense for the MTA to run bus services that cost $12-$25 per passenger and service just 1100 riders per week as Staten Island’s S60 bus does.

In the end — at the 11th hour when no better solution is on the table — I would be willing to support this so-called Russianoff Plan, but for now, I want to see New York try to find that better solution. Today at The Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark tackles a similar subject. He explores how transit riders are no longer surprised by Doomsday cuts and questions the way American municipalities fund transit operations. He writes:

If there is no obvious way to avoid these reductions now, governments at all levels of the federal system should learn from this recession in order to prepare for the next one. In most other countries, despite economic downturns similar to the one being experienced by the United States, transit services have not been cut back at all. One explanation, of course, is a more stable source of revenues than the sales tax relied upon by most American transit systems to fund system operations and capital programs. Similarly, other countries have stronger social support networks, ensuring that when they experience recessions, they’re less likely to see tax revenues drop to a degree seen in the U.S. Finally, most other developed countries don’t immediately turn to inefficient, ineffective tax cuts to solve economic problems.

In other words, the declining state of American transit operations today is more a reflection of a general lack of political will to maintain public service stability. If it is disappointing to watch agencies reduce services dramatically now, it is downright depressing to note that nothing is being done to ensure that a similar situation won’t occur again.

Early last year when the MTA was facing another budget crisis, Freemark explored the state of MTA financing. Two aspects of our transit agency — very high payroll costs and an over-reliance on taxes that fluctuate with the economy — left the MTA high and dry. Paris, for example, relied upon some robust payroll taxes and heavy local subsidies along with a reduced payroll to avoid these economic problems while maintaining control of its fixed costs. New York now has that payroll tax, but it’s such a small part of the MTA’s overall budget that it can’t act as a countervailing measure to a bad real estate and sales economy.

Right now, the MTA’s funding problems are those of a lack of political will. Albany and City Hall have left the MTA with fewer subsidies than ever before, and payroll obligations are starting to spiral out of control. Before the MTA moves stimulus funds to cover operating deficits — a move that may bring the MTA to break-even this year but will leave them with the same problems next — the major players must try to contain these costs and find a more stable annual revenue source. The city and the MTA can’t keep playing this same economic game year in and year out.