Archive for MTA Economics
In Governor’s budget, MTA bucks safe for now
Posted by: | CommentsGov. Andrew Cuomo released a sweeping budget yesterday afternoon that is aimed at shoring up the state’s shaky finances. The big-picture items do not concern us here, but on the transit front, Cuomo has so far delivered as promised. After cuts to the Payroll Mobility Tax last year, he has proposed to make the MTA whole for 2012 and will not yet raid the transit piggy banks. Despite this pledge of dollars, the MTA though will still face a deficit of $35 million this year.
“Because of the tough choices and the historic reforms we achieved last year, we are able to propose a pro-growth budget, tackle broad fiscal reform, drive accountability in our schools to put students first, and leverage tens of billions of dollars of new investment to create jobs without significant cost to the taxpayer,” the Governor said in a statement. “Through fiscal discipline and working in partnership with the private sector, we are making New York a pro-growth State once again. This budget represents the next step in our plan to transform New York State.”
In the Governor’s proposal are a few line items for the MTA. First, the authority will receive $250 million from the state to replace dollars lost to the payroll tax repeal. Eventually, the partial repeal will cost the authority $310 million a year, but because the repeal doesn’t go into effect until mid-2012, the state need only pay over $250 million this year. The future for out-year payments, upon which the MTA had been relying to avoid deficits in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars, remains hazy.
Next the state will contribute an additional $190 million to the MTA, money that had already been factored into the authority’s budget. That isn’t money, as some transit advocates suggested earlier in the day, that came as a surprise to the MTA, and the MTA, unfortunately, cannot use it to restore service cut in 2012.
Finally, the state granted the MTA over $700 million in capital funding and raised the authority’s debt limit by $7 billion. So now the MTA can proceed with securing the necessary revenue flow for the remainder of its capital plan. As Streetsblog noted, this last item is a big one. The MTA has now seen its debt cap increase by $13 billion over the past few years, and at some point, the debt payments are going to come due. It’s fine to build Second Ave. on the backs of revenue-supported bonds, but we will pay tomorrow and for years to come for the remainder of the capital plan.
In a statement, the MTA thanked the governor: “MTA greatly appreciates the Governor’s continued support. When the payroll mobility tax was cut in December, the Governor committed to holding the MTA harmless. He followed through on this commitment by increasing direct aid to the MTA in the 2013 Executive Budget. The Multi-Year Financial Plan contained in the Executive Budget also indicates that MTA will continue to be made whole for the next three fiscal years. In addition, the Executive Budget also includes $770 million in capital funds and an increase in the statutory bond cap that are both critical to the funding plan for the 2010-2014 MTA Capital Program.”
That, of course, is just a part of the charade of the budgeting process. When the state finds itself a few hundred million dollars short come November and December, we’ll see how well those funds supposedly dedicated to and earmarked for the MTA hold up. That $35 million deficit won’t shrink on its own, but we’ll have to rely on Albany to keep from growing ever so quickly.
Bloomberg punts on MTA financing schemes
Posted by: | CommentsThe MTA is in trouble. A creature of the state that runs the city’s most vital transportation network, it has enjoyed nearly no support for New York’s current governor, and those who have argued for its long-term health have been marginalized at best and exiled to Hong Kong at worst.
The brouhaha this week started when Jay Walder finally broke his silence on his tenure in New York. As I reported on Wednesday, he did not have kind words for the MTA’s condition or Albany’s treatment of the network. We’ve heard that Walder and Gov. Andrew Cuomo did not have a great working relationship, and Walder’s statements seem to bear that out.
Two days ago, I excerpted just a part of Walder’s statement but later learned what more he had to say. “New York, when I arrived there, was in a financial crisis,” he explained. “The system simply did not have enough money to continue to operate. The assets were not being renewed. And the infrastructure was in terrible condition. What I did was to be able to right that financial basis and to be able to put the system back on firm financial footing.”
That so-called “firm” financial footing may have been a mirage. The state stripped to the MTA of some expected dollars by reallocating supposedly dedicated funds, and a partial repeal of the payroll tax has left a good chunk of the MTA’s budget in a state of flux. Furthermore, that “firm” financial footing relied on assumptions concerning debt financing and labor expenditures that could still turn out to be far from the eventual reality.
Walder wasn’t the only one speaking out on the MTA though. More immediately, Mayor Bloomberg has joined the fray. In a press conference yesterday, Bloomberg essentially punted on helping transit secure better financing. “We gave it our best shot,” the mayor said of his congestion pricing plan. “We came up with an idea. We worked very hard to get every good-government group behind it, every union behind it, the public behind it, every newspaper behind it, and then when it got to Albany, it didn’t get passed. So I think at this point it behooves us to just stay out of it.”
Speaking directly to Walder’s comments, the Mayor elaborated: “Keep in mind, it’s all relative. When I came to New York in 1966, the subway cars were covered in graffiti, they broke down all the time, they had no signaling. Having said that, if you compare today’s MTA system here to modern systems — and I have been on the Hong Kong system — it’s an order of magnitude more modern, and that’s what we have to do. It’s a state problem. They’ve got to find the monies.”
A state problem. Even though Bloomberg appoints four of the MTA Board members and city taxes fund the MTA, finding a long-term solution has become a state problem. Ironically, that’s why the MTA first came about all of those decades ago. Somehow, the city had to remove politics from transit fare policy, and a state agency that could reappropriate road tolls to fund transit while unifying Metro-North, LIRR and NYC Transit seemed the way to do it. It no longer seems to be working.
If it’s a state problem then, the state should do something, but instead, we have a governor with no real appreciation for transit. After avoiding much mention of the MTA in his State of the State speech, Cuomo drew heavy fire from transit advocates.”While the Governor is right to call for greater investment in infrastructure, Albany cannot continue to give short shrift to funding transit across our state,” Transportation Alternatives Executive Director Paul Steely White said. “Public transit projects create a jobs dividend that stretches from the five-boroughs to Upstate New York. From manufacturing jobs in the North Country to construction jobs in the metropolitan area, fully funding public transit not only helps get millions of people to work every day, it creates good-paying jobs for New Yorkers.”
Ultimately, then, what remains for the MTA? The state won’t tackle this difficult challenge; top transit experts and executives willing to do so have been pushed out; and the mayor, the last public figure who could affect real change by demanding more city control of the TA, is effectively wiping his hands of the matter. It’s looking bleak out there, and those fighting for better transit know it.
“The State of New York’s public transit is poor,” TransAlt’s White said. “From Buffalo to Brooklyn, New Yorkers are losing affordable public transit options because of the fare hikes and service cuts that are the result of a chronic lack of transit funding. To protect businesses and jobs in this state, Governor Cuomo would do well to consider the millions of businesses around the state that are wed to transit.”
But is anyone else listening?
Thoughts on the price of a subway ride
Posted by: | CommentsForty years ago today the cost of a subway ride jumped, literally overnight, from 30 cents to 35, as the New-York Historical Society reminded us via Twitter. At the time, the MTA had just gotten approval from Albany and D.C. to raise the fares, and so barely 13 hours after voting for a fare hike, the new price went into effect. That five-cent jump, as Matt’ Johnson pointed out, is the equivalent of an increase from $1.62 to $1.89 in 2011 dollars. All of these figures got me thinking about the fare structure.
Today, with all of Transit’s various per-ride discounts and unlimited-ride cards, the average subway fare is $1.64. That essentially corresponds to the pre-Jan. 5, 1972 fare of $0.30 in 1972 dollars. Without the average fare from 1972, it’s tougher to draw a comparison, but the only discounts then were for seniors. Many New Yorkers were subject to a two-fare zone as well. So essentially, after the Jan. 5 fare hike, New Yorkers paid more for worse subway and bus service in 1972 than they do in 2012.
What then does all of this math mean for our current fare structure? Is it too low? Is it too complicated? Over the past few years, the MTA has been aggressively trying to tie its fares in with inflation, and as they point out every month, the current average fare still trails the pre-Unlimited Ride average fare by 27 inflation-adjusted cents. It seems to me as though we don’t pay enough for our subway rides, but who really wants to make that argument anyway?
Despite increased deficit, no service cuts in 2012 budget
Posted by: | CommentsAfter a contentious session in which some board members urged the MTA to restore services lost to the 2010 cuts, the MTA Board voted this morning to approve a 2012 budget that contains no restoration of services but no further cuts either. Yet, with state tax revenues lower than expected, the MTA now faces a deficit of $68 million next year and will cover the gap by reducing internal expenses by $35 million and releasing $33 million from the general fund. “The reduction in projected subsidies underscores the fragility of the MTA’s current fiscal stability,” MTA Executive Director Joseph J. Lhota said. “It also indicates how important it is for the MTA to continue its recent efforts to reduce costs, even as we work to improve service.”
The budget itself, which does not call for a fare hike either, is rather perfunctory. Board officials acknowledged that the assumptions — net-zero labor increase, subsidy levels — could fall short of expectations, but the MTA will addresses those contingencies as they arise. The bigger story concerned the battle between board members who wanted the MTA to spend a few million to restore services and those who believed the agency’s economic situation too fragile to even explore the issue.
This debate over service levels is an ongoing one both at MTA Board meetings and amongst transit advocates. Should the MTA be responsible for the failings of Albany or should the authority look to offer services first and foist the issue of paying for those services onto the shoulders of our elected representatives? Considering how many in Albany get a free pass on transit issues, the latter may be an intriguing outcome. For now, though, fares and service levels in 2012 are as safe as they ever are.
After payroll tax cut, Moody’s casts wary eye on MTA bonds
Posted by: | CommentsAs New York lawmakers push for a full payroll tax repeal with nary a nod toward its impact on the region’s transportation or economy, bond ratings are casting a wary eye on the MTA’s offerings as the agency’s revenue projections decline. As Bloomberg News reports, Moody’s Investment Services is warning of a “credit strain” at the MTA as the move to remove payroll tax funds “signals a shift in government support” for New York City’s transit network.
“The MTA’s financial operations are already tight, and failure to restore the lost revenue may put negative pressure on the MTA’s transportation-revenue bonds,” Nicole Johnson, a senior vice president, said in a Moody’s report. “Our credit analysis will focus on how the state establishes a new backstop.”
Moody’s currently rates the MTA bonds — which will soon be coming in bunches as the authority plans to support its capital plan through the issuance of debt — as A2 with a stable outlook. If a “credit strain” and lack of state support leads the ranking agencies to downgrade the bonds, it will cost the MTA more to issue them. No matter the outcome, the costs of the payroll tax repeal will fall on the shoulder’s of riders.
Tax revenues for MTA $87M short as bad month continues
Posted by: | CommentsDecember is always a harsh mistress for the MTA. As the authority gears up to cope with inclimate weather and all of the challenges feet of snow can bring, up in Albany, the New York state legislature tries to pretend it isn’t totally inept as it rushes to wrap up end-of-year work. Included in that work are appropriations measures that usually mean a raid on MTA funds and of course, new tax measures.
This year has been a particularly tough one for the MTA. The authority is losing $320 million annually in a cut to the payroll mobility tax with only a vague promise from Gov. Andrew Cuomo that he will somehow find a steady or not-so-steady source of replacement funds. The state reappropriated another $100 million that was supposed to fill the MTA coffers while the governor stripped the transit lockbox legislation of any teeth. Now, we find out that the New York State beancounters once again over-estimated the MTA’s tax haul.
As Pete Donohue reported, the New York’s Mass Transportation Operating Assistance account, a key MTA funding mechanism, will be $87 million short of initial estimates as tax revenue was less than expected. For an MTA that was, a few weeks ago, looking forward to a semblance of financial stability in 2012, the news comes at the end of a few long weeks.
To make matters worse, as Donohue relates, this drop comes after two MTA Board members had lobbied hard to set some money aside next year to restore buses lost to the 2010 service cuts. Now, those plans are off the table. Donohue reports:
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s financial outlook has worsened since just last month, when two board members proposed setting aside money to bring back some of the axed service – which included 36 bus routes — sources said. The state Division of Budget has told the MTA to expect an $87 million drop in projected subsidies from the Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance account next year because certain tax revenues are coming in lower than anticipated.
MTA subsidies from the account also are likely to be lower than previously projected for the following three years – 2013, 2014 and 2015 – by $58 million, $45 million and $47 million, the state has told the MTA. “We’ve been saying all along how fragile the budget is, and you can see we’re nowhere near out of the woods,” one source at MTA headquarters said. “Now is not the appropriate time to be talking about restoring service,” the source said.
The MTA budget going before the board next week for a vote will include tapping some of the MTA’s small reserve and finding other savings to make up for the shortfall. Additional service cuts won’t be in the mix, sources said.
That last bit of news, at least, is a welcome development, but it’s a small consolation for a cash-starved MTA that is also facing some tough labor negotiations. (Their current contract with the TWU ends on January 15, but no one is expecting a repeat of the 2005 transit strike.)
Meanwhile, to drive home the point, the Straphangers Campaign released their annual top ten lists of subway stories yesterday. They focus on both the ten best and ten worst stories of the year, and while the ten good items concern technology upgrades and better bus service, the ten worst are all about the dollars. The MTA has lost upwards of $400 million over the past few weeks as it eyes debt funding for the remainder of its current capital plan. At some point, the system and the authority will reach its fiscal breaking point.
With $320 million gone, cheering the wrong thing
Posted by: | CommentsWith nary a public hearing, a commissioned study or much advanced warning, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the MTA Payroll Tax repeal into law yesterday afternoon. With the stroke of the pen, the Governor has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors who refused to guard the MTA’s dedicated revenue funds, and he stripped $320 million in annual funding from the MTA’s budget. It was a dark, dark day for the city’s five million daily straphangers who rely on constant service and affordable fares to power the city’s and the state’s economy.
As the dust settles from last week’s surprise announcement concerning this revenue stream, transit advocates remain dismayed. Cuomo, as Transportation Nation’s Jim O’Grady and Colby Hamilton noted, claims the lost money will be replaced “dollar for dollar.” That’s a lofty claim for a governor who has silenced congestion pricing supporters and seems disinclined to invest in transit. Will that money be replaced on a one-time basis for 2012? Will Cuomo identify a new semi-permanent revenue stream that will help shore up the MTA’s budget? Right now, no one knows.
Even before the ink dried on the bill, though, State officials, nearly all from the Republican Party, were toasting the end of this so-called “job-killing” tax. It’s a tiring and wrong point, one I’ve debated numerous times over the past few years, but that didn’t stop the usual gang of New Yorkers from patting themselves on the back. “I want to thank Governor Cuomo and my legislative colleagues for their partnership to help begin repealing the job-killing MTA Payroll Tax,” Sen. Lee Zeldin, one of the most egregious payroll tax opponents said. “The MTA Payroll Tax has been damaging our economy and restricting the growth of quality jobs in New York. Repealing this tax for all small businesses and schools, and reducing the rate for others, spurs real economic development and helps put New York State on the path towards prosperity.”
“The MTA payroll tax has been an enormous burden on businesses and today we are lifting that burden. More than 290,000 small businesses will now have a greater opportunity to invest in their businesses and invest in creating new jobs,” Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos said.
The one Democrat who offered a comment seemed to fail to understand the role transit funding plays in the region. “The reduction and, in some cases, elimination of the payroll tax is a step in the right direction,” Assemblyman Kevin Cahill said “I have been fighting against this unfair tax since its inception, and this brings us closer to doing away with it entirely. While the MTA is important to our state and plays a significant role in our economy, the payroll tax placed an undue burden on underserved Hudson Valley communities, making them responsible for a system from which they receive no benefits.”
No benefits! Hudson Valley, a part of New York State, which is largely supported by New York City, which relies on the MTA for economic success, supposedly receives no benefits from the MTA. It’s a laughable thing to claim in public, and I have to wonder what Assemblyman Cahill thinks of his constituents’ collective intelligence.
Even without such absurd statements from Hudson Valley, Zeldin’s claims hit closer to home. Somehow, funding the MTA is “damaging our economy and restricting the growth of quality jobs in New York.” Zeldin should talk to Brooklyn merchants who see their business decline by 80 percent when the MTA doesn’t provide adequate transit service to their areas. Perhaps Zeldin should read Charles Komanoff’s assessment of the impact of the tax cut. He argues how the $320 million in lost revenue will make travel slower and our roads more congested as transit cutbacks drive subway riders to more frequent use of cars and cabs. That — and not some job-starved desolate landscape — is the future of the city without an adequately funded MTA.
Now that suburban interests have succeeded in rolling back over a fifth of the MTA’s projected payroll tax revenue, the answer should be simple: Make the suburban counties pay for it. As long as the city and its business owners continue to pay the payroll tax, the money should prop up New York City Transit’s buses and subways first and the commuter rails later, if there’s enough left to spread around. Then, perhaps, these suburban representatives will start to learn how much the MTA means to them and their constituents. That — or some congestion pricing plan with dedicated transit revenues — seems to me to be the only far way to ensure that key services are maintained in light of an even higher and more crushing debt.
In final four-year budget plan, no service cuts
Posted by: | Comments
If the MTA is unable to attain a net zero wage increase for unionized workers, operating deficits could top $500 million by 2014. (via)
The MTA Wednesday unveiled its final 2012 budget and the latest set of projections for 2013-2015. Although the budgets still rely on revenue generated by fare hikes in both 2013 and 2015, the authority does not currently anticipate cutting services to balance its books. However, the long-term outlook remains debt-heavy, and the MTA admitted that its four-year projections rest on a precariously balanced dime.
“The MTA has achieved a fragile fiscal stability by reducing expenses and operating more efficiently,” Joseph Lhota, MTA Executive Director, said in a statement. “It’s clear, though, that we’re still feeling the impact of the economic crisis and must continue to reduce costs even as we work to improve service.”
The details, available in full as a PDF here, remain substantially the same as they were in July. Thanks to aggressive cost-cutting measures instituted while Jay Walder was the CEO and Chair, the MTA anticipates annual savings of at least $850 million by 2015. By freezing non-unionized worker pay for three years, reducing administrative overhead and reining in overtime, the MTA has begrudgingly become a leaner organization.
Yet, the long-term outlook is rife with potential problems. Even still, the MTA is relying on two fare and toll hikes that will be designed to increase revenue by 7.5 percent, but those are the safe figures. The MTA is counting on $323 million in what they’re calling “net zero wage savings for represented employees.” In other words, unionized workers will either by taking pay freezes for the foreseeable future or the MTA will have to resort to layoffs. I don’t think John Samuelsen will be too happy to hear that.
The MTA, meanwhile, warned of inherent risks in their rosy projects. For now, the authority anticipates an operating surplus in 2011, a balanced budget in 2012 and a smaller surplus in 2013 before the MTA lands over $200 million in the red by 2015. Much of this deficit, the authority says, is driven by increasing costs of retiree and healthcare benefits that will eat up nearly all of the additional revenue generated by the anticipated 2013 and 2015 fare hikes.
Furthermore, the MTA warns that a variety of factors could turn this rosy outlook sour. Among those factors are a stagnant overall economy; reductions in state subsidies and dedicated taxes; a failure to achieve desired expense reductions; an increase in labor costs due to bargained-for agreements that do not attain the “net zero” wage level; less funding for the capital program. As far as projected budgets go, then, the MTA’s current plan may be a final one that needs approval but it’s hardly set in stone.
The other 800 pound gorilla in the room involves debt on the operating budget and funding for the capital plan. As the MTA seeks to close a significant funding gap in its five-year capital plan, it will do so through a series of measures that will increase its long-term debt obligations. Even as the authority retires debt from the 1980s, more will hit the books. Future New Yorkers will have to pay for both our desired maintenance and theirs.
“In the context of the ongoing economic crisis in New York State, this proposal advances our critical capital investments in an affordable way,” MTA CFO Robert Foran said. “It relies on revenues already dedicated to capital expenses and keeps debt service at a manageable level, with the percentage of debt to capital investment the lowest in 15 years.”
And what of the surplus and budget flexibility? Two MTA Board members have proposed reinstituting services lost to the 2010 cuts. Mitch Pally and Allen Cappelli both called up on the MTA to include a $20 million item in its $12 billion budget that would restore some of the old service. “I don’t believe we can restore all of them, but I believe a portion of them should be – and can be – funded in this plan,” Pally said during yesterday’s MTA Board meeting.
Everyone is fighting for a piece of the pie, and those who inherit the most are those who will have to face the MTA’s mounting pile of debt. For now, the authority will stay afloat, but the long-term outlook is not comforting.
DiNapoli: MTA rife with ‘systemic overtime abuse’
Posted by: | Comments
Over the past few years, I’ve been rather critical of New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s reports highlighting MTA efficiencies. He’s been targeting small potato issues that wouldn’t result in major cost savings without highlighting how a comprehensive reform effort involving Albany, MTA management and its labor unions would streamline efficiency and economics at the authority. Telling the world that service changes are annoying and debt is a bad idea hardly seem like game-chargers.
Now, though, a glimmer of useful information has emerged from DiNapoli’s office. In a highly targeted forensic audit of the Signal Construction Unit for Metro-North, DiNapoli has found “systemic overtime abuse” that may rise to the level of fraud. The audit — available here as a PDF — explores how 28 workers in a 30-employee division took home an average of $42,000 per employee in overtime in 2010 and how pension padding may balloon to $5.5 million.
“MTA management has tolerated a manipulation of the system by both supervisors and workers who have enjoyed the perks of having a daytime shift for jobs that need to be done at nights and on weekends,” DiNapoli said. “In 2010, in one 30-member unit at Metro North, over one million dollars was paid out for avoidable overtime and rest shifts. Federal laws implemented to protect riders were exploited to enrich employees at the expense of taxpayers. There’s no place for this type of abuse in New York and it must stop.”
In a press release, DiNapoli’s office summed up the technical findings:
Supervisors boosted employee incomes and pensions by regularly assigning overtime work to be done at night by workers whose normally scheduled shift was during the daytime. These extra overtime shifts in turn triggered a requirement (the federal Hours of Service statute) that they rest – at full pay – during their next day’s shift.
DiNapoli’s auditors calculated that the shift manipulation for 28 of the 30 employees in the Unit cost Metro-North $991,208 in overtime and $216,128 in pay for rest shifts in 2010. For six of these employees, the additional payments inflated future projected pension benefits by $5.5 million. One worker was able to increase his projected total pension amount by $1.5 million above what would have been earned at his regular salary.
The Signal Construction Unit supervisors, who are not covered by the statute, also improperly enriched themselves by scheduling their own overtime and paid rest shifts. The Comptroller’s office believes the supervisors’ actions are potentially fraudulent because they did not perform job duties expressly set forth in the statute. In addition, the audit also found that supervisors improperly approved their own time records and charged payroll costs to unrelated capital projects to avoid detection.
While Metro-North officials in a letter appended to the audit disagreed with some of DiNapoli’s findings, the comptroller has referred the case to the MTA Inspector General for further investigation. A finding of corruption or legally-actionable fraud could be quite revealing for both the MTA and Metro-North workers.
In fact, the audit itself could be troubling without further investigation. Two rank-and-file crew members did not disguise their ability to exploit the job for more pay. “I’m entitled to it,” one said. “It’s my turn now.”
Another employee added, “I know I have a good gig going on. If I had to name the top five jobs in the country, this would have to be, hands down, number one.” DiNapoli claims these MTA workers “exemplify the sense of entitlement and culture that is likely pervasive throughout the MTA.”
Ultimately, DiNapoli’s suggestions seem rather obvious. Stop unnecessary overtime pay; don’t allow supervisors to sign their own attendance records; stop improper payments. Yet, despite this seemingly mundane outcome, DiNapoli’s audit is an eye-opener. In one department of 30 workers, 28 of them took home an extra $42,000 in overtime pay last year. How deep does this run?
Poll finds majority support for MTA payroll tax
Posted by: | CommentsThere are fewer taxes more controversial in New York State right now than the payroll tax passed a few years ago to support the MTA. Levying a tax of 0.34 percent on businesses in the 12 counties serviced by the MTA, the tax has generated around $1.3 billion annually for the MTA, and it has drawn the non-stop ire of New York Republicans, some of whom have made trying to repeal it their life’s goal. Yet, a new poll shows reasonably strong support for it throughout the state.
According to a Quinnipiac poll, 56 percent of voters support the payroll tax. Forty-five percent say the tax is fine as is while 11 percent would increase it. Meanwhile, 24 percent of voters would like to see the tax repealed completely while nine percent would prefer it decreased. These results seem to jibe with other numbers that show a strong upstate/downstate divide over MTA support.
A whopping 59 percent of upstate voters oppose additional state support for the MTA while 55 percent of New York City voters want more state subsidies. Overall, New Yorkers oppose additional support for the MTA by a 51-42 margin, and voters seem to realize that repealing the payroll tax in the 12 MTA counties would lead to more state subsidies in another form. The MTA, after all, is counting heavily on the money to avoid service cuts and unplanned fare hikes.
Yet, despite this showing of support, the Republicans in the Assembly have been tirelessly advocate for a repeal. On Staten Island, business leaders and politicians have been railing against the tax, and state GOP representatives held an anti-tax hearing earlier this week with a focus on Staten Island and Brooklyn. Former New York City Comptroller and failed Mayoral candidate Bill Thompson called for a payroll tax repeal in The Post this week, but his plan includes other state subsidies.
The complaints for business leaders and politicians deserve a closer. Especially among Staten Island and Bay Ridge residents who seemingly suffered the most from the 2010 bus cuts, complaints focus around services. Business owners claim their employees drive and derive no benefit from public transit while others say they are taxed more for even less service. Of course, it’s tough to take these forums too seriously when people start calling the taxes “basically un-American” and “discriminatory.”
The concurrent problem is one of politics. State GOP Assembly representatives know a payroll tax repeal won’t make it through Sheldon Silver’s Assembly, and they have offered no better solution. Taking a page from the Lee Zeldin handbook of incomplete ideas, Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis said the MTA could, according to SI Live, “could make up the shortfall by selling off real estate, streamlining bloated executive salaries and renegotiating vendor contracts.” If the authority could generate $1.3 billion through those measures — most of which provide only one-time benefits — I have a bridge to sell Ms. Malliotakis.
Ultimately, the end of the payroll tax will come as part of a bargain: Institute congestion pricing or toll the East River Bridges, and the payroll tax can be similarly reduced. I can’t imagine suburban residents or Staten Island politicians would be too thrilled with that bargain, but the only other outcome would be a seriously starved MTA forced to cut services and hike fares. Who wants that anyway?









