Andrew Cuomo will be New York’s next governor. Barring some sort of catastrophic revelation over the last two weeks of the campaign, the current Attorney General should cakewalk to Albany as he trounces Carl Paladino and a field of lesser candidates. He’ll inherit a state fraught with financial problems and an MTA suffering from malign neglect in Albany. Yet, in light of what he’s said, I fear that Cuomo, a New York City guy through and through, will not be a forward-looking governor when it comes to transportation.
Since he started campaigning, Cuomo has been mostly silent on matters relating to the MTA. His copious campaign materials — including a new 273-page urban agenda — make scant mention to issues of public transit, and his comments have been dismaying to say the least. During Monday’s debates, he fell back on that spurious claim that the MTA has two sets of books and has repeatedly spoken of “reexamining” the payroll tax that provides the MTA with $1.5 billion annually. He hasn’t offered up any alternative funding sources and, in fact, seems intent on shutting the door on realistic — and necessary — alternatives.
In introducing this new urban agenda, one that focuses more on poverty, jobs and housing than on urban sustainability, Cuomo faced the transit music as reporters started peppering him with questions on all matters MTA. Andrea Bernstein from Transportation Nation has more:
But all the journalists there, pretty much, wanted to talk transit. In fact, I didn’t raise the subject. A Daily News reporter did. “There’s going to be a need for more efficiency,” Cuomo said of the MTA. “More effectiveness, better management. You can’t have over $500 million in overtime. You can’t have thousands of people making over $100,000 a year . I believe the Governor should be accountable for the MTA.”
My turn. But what about funding for the MTA? Does he support congestion pricing? [As Mayor Bloomberg does?] Bridge tolls? [As Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch does?] “Congestion pricing was proposed,” Cuomo parried. “It was discussed. It was basically rejected by the legislature. I don’t know that there’s been any change in opinion. I think it’s moot. I understand the concept. I understand that it was rejected. I don’t think it would pass if it came up again, unless something changed.”
Without offering specifics, he added. “There’s going to be a number of revenue raisers. The instinct is going to be to say ‘more money more money more money.’ I understand that. Part of the discipline I want to bring is a fiscal discipline to the state and the MTA. The answer can’t always be more money.”
Already, the problem is obvious: Cuomo doesn’t appear to have a plan, and he’s already closed the door on revenue-generating initiatives that for a variety of reasons — social, environmental, economic — should happen. New York City residents overwhelmingly support congestion pricing if the revenue is earmarked for transit improvements, but Cuomo, without even trying to work with the legislature, claims congestion pricing is a non-starter.
He also doesn’t understand that while overtime abuse is a problem, overtime is going to be necessary for a 24-hour transit system such as the one in New York City. The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate all overtime; it should be to eliminate unnecessary overtime. Before even getting elected, Cuomo seems to be giving up.
The reporters though didn’t let up:
But then Melissa Russo of WNBC Channel 4 asked (I’m paraphrasing): how could he say, if it didn’t happen, it won’t happen? What about all the other things he wants to happen — like government reform? Isn’t the problem that the legislature hasn’t made them happen? Cuomo said: “Melissa, there is no doubt just because it didn’t happen in the past, it can’t be the precedent that it won’t happen in the future, otherwise we would get nothing done. My point is I don’t want to go to revenue raisers first.”
Then Marcia Kramer of Channel 2 chimed in (paraphrase, again). So what’s his plan to raise capital funds for a 21st century transit system (she actually said, “21st century transit system.” “Marcia, I –there is no doubt that the MTA requires large sums of money to operate. There’ no doubt that the capital projects have to be funded. But my response is the same. Fiscal discipline, look at the word discipline. What I’m trying to say about state government and the authorities is the first instinct has to be how do we do more with less?”
“Once you thoroughly exhaust that process, if you get to the point when you say, we looked at the budget with a fine-tooth comb, we did everything we could and we have not determined we need additional revenue then you have the conversation at that time.”
Fiscal discipline. That sounds good to me, and for once, Cuomo seems to be speaking in realistic platitudes instead of in diatribes divorced from that reality. Fiscal discipline in a time of tight funds is, of course, the right goal, but it’s worth noting that the MTA has been on a path of fiscal discipline for much of the last year. MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder doesn’t just walk around saying “Make every dollar count”; he’s actually realized this goal by trimming $730 million in annual expenses from the authority’s operating budget.
The problem though is one of fixed costs and future obligations. At a certain point, the MTA has to maintain a large workforce to sustain operations across hundreds of miles, three different rail ways, extensive bus routes and a bridge and tunnel network. It has to fulfill its pension obligations; it has to make its debt payments; it has to continue to invest in capital projects. And that’s where Cuomo seemingly fails. He doesn’t have a plan for generating revenue and wants to drill down on a source — the payroll tax — the MTA can’t afford to lose. For a guy from Queens, I expected much more from our future governor.
16 comments
“Cuomo doesn’t appear to have a plan, and he’s already closed the door on revenue-generating initiatives that for a variety of reasons — social, environmental, economic — should happen.”
I don’t think the above is Cuomo “closing the door on” CP or bridge tolls, I think he’s saying “The legislature isn’t going to pass it, so there’s no point in me pissing anyone off by expressing an opinion one way or the other.” It’s the same kind of non-stance that has characterized his campaign (which is smart politicking, I suppose, given that it’s been practically a given all along that he’ll win so long as he doesn’t royally screw up), but it’s not the same thing as actual opposition to those.
Of course, it does seem to indicate that he’s not going to push for them like Bloomberg or Ravitch would, either.
The bridge tolls didn’t pass because of four knucklehead senators from NYC who voted against the interests of the majority of their own constituents. One of those four has been tossed out by the voters and one other has been tossed out by his colleagues in the Senate. The remaining two could easily be persuaded to vote in favor of them if a politically strong Governor got behind them.
Too late for that. The balance of power in the Senate’s going to change come Election Day. If the Republicans take over, then the plan is dead regardless, and if they don’t, you need to consider all the new guys that will be coming in anyway, and we don’t know if they might have the same positions as the four you mentioned.
Unclear what a Republican majority would mean for bridge tolls since they never had to vote on it before. The majority of the post bailout rhetoric has been focused on the city somehow getting over on the suburbs. The suburban legislators think that the city Democrats were victorious on the MTA bailout because the suburbs got the same rate of payroll tax levy as the city, but the city Democrats killed the bridge tolls. I’m not saying this is rational. Plenty of us city folk would love to see bridge tolls. The point is the Republicans from upstate might go for bridge tolls as a way to settle the score with the City Democrats, in the oversimplified version.
The Senate Republicans were willing to support bridge tolls, but opposed the bailout package because it included payroll taxes. Back when Bloomberg gave them a heap of money they were also willing to support CP, but that move made the Assembly Democrats hate the plan.
And before that, Bloomberg’s CP plan was killed in the Assembly (thanks again Shelly). If the next CP plan is hatched and passes the Senate there’s still the all-powerful, inscrutable sphinx from the LES to contend with. If the plan is pushed by someone Mr. Silver doesn’t favor, then it’ll fall through his trap door into the piranha tank like a Bond villain’s victim.
I liked the Bloomberg Congestion pricing plan because it only applied to RUSH hour. Most folks where i live take the train/bus to work and go to the city at night and weekends by car. the technology could have been used to issue tickets for red light runners that could have funded the mta. There are so many motorists that just operate their vehicles in an unlawful manner. Hit them over the head with fines and use part of the money to pay for mass transit and free law abiding motorists from unfair tolls and taxes
What many outer borough residents fear is that the congestion pricing plan will be yet another tax on the average working Joe to pay for ever expanding TWU wages and no change in work rules.
Once in place it will be the TBTA bridge tolls all over again. raise tolls and taxes on middle class motorists to fund raises and sometimes LUXURY services for the poor and manahattan elite’s
My area of Brooklyn has seen middle class folks, some third generation fleeing the city due to high taxes and the focus on the rights of all other but the ones who abide by the rules
YOU CAN NOT LIVE a middle class lifestyle where i live without a car regardless of whether you take the train to work in the city.
i don’t have a problem with his stance. i would love to see him combat excessive pay & benefits, OT abuse, pension spiking, etc…before coming back to New Yorkers with revenue generating plans.
The backwards work rules that contribute to bad service and unneeded spending is the 2000 lb gorilla in the room. $2 billion in savings could be had. Restore $500 million in services and use $500 million to capitol budget and the rest to pay down the debt thus further reducing operating expenses.
@0 min waits for a 3/4 empty 600ft two person operated train is unacceptable. Coming home from my girlfriends house at on the Upper west side can take nearly 40-60 minutes more than during the daylight hours. With half length OPTO trains at 12 minute waits, you will significantly reduce travel time and save 50% on operating cost. The Train operator also benefits with added pay. This can be done with screens inside the cab and without delay to riders as with the current system. There is no safety issue either. Rider safety is improve as wait times in deserted stations is reduced. You will see a 5-10% or more increase in in late night ridership
Cuomo is going to be as lame as Patterson and Spitzer. At least Patterson gave us a good MTA head.
But isn’t Mr. Walder doing all these efficiencies already? If only the other agency heads had the cojon*s to do that. That Mr. Cuomo is a might out of touch. And the ‘doing more with less’? C’mon Governor-elect-to-be, that phrase was passe more than 5 years ago. You’re a smart man, so then smarten up! Give NYers some credit and respect and address the issue head on.
“We must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.”
Kang and Kodos for Governor?
I’m not sure you can get any sense of what someone will do in office by listening to what they say during a campaign. No sane politician from either party takes a realistic position on any tricky issue before an election. Doing so can only cost you more votes than it wins you.
That said, if Cuomo is less a conviction politician than a vote maximizer, expect bad things. He has no reason whatever to fund public transit. It’s not like transit advocates will abandon the Democrats for the Republicans next election, so he can treat you as badly as he wants. Transit riders are true blue. Swing voters drive.
[…] his campaign last year, Gov. Cuomo vowed to stand behind the MTA. “I believe the governor should be accountable for the MTA,” he said in October. […]
[…] ring true through his actions today. Without giving details on sources of transit funding, he said, “There’s going to be a number of revenue raisers. The instinct is going to be to say ‘more […]