Archive for MTA Politics
Dec
12
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.
Dec
09
Cuomo strips MTA of $320 million, lockbox protections
Posted by: | CommentsA few weeks ago, Gov. Andrew Cuomo uttered a phrase that could go down in New York state history. “I am the government,” he said in a radio interview in early November. Since then, Cuomo has run roughshod over Albany, enforcing his whims over those of the state legislature and public, and New York City’s transit service will soon be paying a heavy, heavy price.
The fun started earlier this week when Gov. Cuomo announced an agreement forged with Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver to reform New York’s tax code. As a favor to suburban legislators who enjoy transit access but want the city to subsidize their commuter rail service even more than we already do, Cuomo threw in a partial repeal of the payroll mobility tax. That tax, by the way, supports the MTA to the tune of $1.5 billion a year. Without it, the authority would be facing massive fare hikes or service cuts.
Originally, the new tax proposal was to cost the MTA $250 million in annual revenue, but that number has since increased to $320 million. No one is happy. The Times editorialized against MTA cuts, and a group of transit advocates spoke out against the decision. In a statement endorsed by the General Contractors Association, Straphangers, the RPA and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, the group highlighted the issue with the state’s approach:
The problem with this approach is three-fold:
- estimates of what’s needed can be incorrect, exposing the MTA to serious financial risk;
- payrolls can grow over time, subsidies do not; and
- subsidies can be lowered over time, as was the appropriation for student MetroCards;
A better way can be found in the way public schools are being treated right now. These schools now pay the PMT and then apply for reimbursement from the State.
Right now, Cuomo and state leaders claim their find $320 million through alternative funding sources, but as Streetsblog noted yesterday, the MTA’s payroll tax funding has now become discretionary. The state can remove the funding; they can fail to find it; they can do whatever they want because they are the government. While congestion pricing with dedicated transit revenues would likely generate the $320 million needed to cover this new funding gap, that option has been off the table since the fall, and leading congestion pricing advocates tell me it could be a few years before those efforts are revived.
To make matters worse, in a special session in Albany yesterday, Cuomo essentially striped the Transit Lockbox Bill of any bite. What was a strong bill with stringent requirements has now become a shell of its former self. Originally, the lockbox, which passed by the Assembly and Senate with nary a dissent, prevented the state from removing transit funding without the full support of the state legislature. It also required a public statement detailing the amount diverted from mass transit and the impact that diversion would have on the level of service, maintenance and security.
Those key provisions are now entirely gone. In the new bill, foisted on Albany by Cuomo, the governor as the power to divert funds if he “declares a fiscal emergency,” and the reporting requirements have been removed entirely. The public will not know the extent of the raids on service levels unless others report on them. This is a lockbox without a lock, and a group of union leaders and transit advocates are not happy. “We do not support the substitute legislation passed in this special session,” the coalition that saw the bill through originally said. “It does not constrain future raids on transit funds, and deletes the requirement that the of the diversion of transit dedicated funds be reported.”
The bill’s original sponsors have vowed to restore the language next year, but Gov. Cuomo never indicated that he would sign the more powerful piece of legislation. And so we are left with an MTA striped of $320 million, no clear sign from where replacement funds will originate, and a lockbox that isn’t. As Andrew Cuomo said, he is the government, and his is a government with no sense of the role transit funding plays in New York City. Sad times indeed.
Dec
06
Cuomo deal cuts MTA payroll tax revenues, but…
Posted by: | CommentsAs New York state leaders in Albany look to reform the tax code, the payroll tax that, in part, funds the MTA will be cut, Gov. Cuomo announced this afternoon. The new plan, which enjoys the support of a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers will see the state directly reimburse the MTA for last payroll tax revenues, but I’m wary of any plan that weakens the MTA’s dedicated revenues.
The payroll tax cuts are part of a larger plan that relieves the tax burden on middle class New Yorkers while targeting the upper classes instead. It’s also designed to spur job creation through infrastructure investment, although the transit part of that picture appears to be missing. For more on the overall package, feel free to browse through the Governor’s press release. The following bit buried at the end of the release though is important:
The Governor and the legislative leaders have agreed to reduce the MTA payroll tax on small businesses while maintaining the necessary funding for the MTA from other sources. The payroll tax would be eliminated or reduced for 294,900 taxpayers overall. The tax would also be eliminated from an additional 415,000 taxpayers by raising the self-employment income exemption. In addition, private elementary and secondary schools, as well as parochial schools, would be exempt from the tax. The State would compensate the MTA for the $250 million in lost revenue.
When the original plans for a payroll tax overhaul were leaked earlier this week, the reimbursements were backwards. The state was going to reimburse tax payers for the monies they had to pay out under the payroll tax, and the MTA would see no loss in revenue from the state. Now, the state will use “other sources” to ensure that the MTA gets its $250 million while the taxpayers won’t need to pony up the dough any longer.
Of course, we know how that story ends. Without a steady stream of money from the payroll tax, the state will suddenly be unable to find the $250 million it owes to the MTA, and legislators will blame the MTA when the authority comes forward with a budget deficit. It’s unclear right now if that $250 million payment would cover just 2012 or would be implemented on an ongoing basis. As it stands now, the MTA’s budget projects long-term deficits with over $1.5 billion in payroll tax revenue. Reducing that figure by $250 million a year would increase the MTA’s deficits as well as the pressure on the public to carry that debt through fare increases, service cuts or both.
Furthermore, this move by the state highlights the need for the lockbox legislation. Not only would it make it more difficult for the state to rearrange MTA finances, but it would require the state to explain what $250 million in loss subsidies would mean for the MTA. Instead that legislation has languished on Cuomo’s desk.
The MTA in a statement was diplomatic: “”We are grateful to the Governor, Majority Leader and Speaker for reaching an agreement that ensures the MTA will continue to receive the level of funding needed to keep New York and its economy moving.” I can’t help but feel pangs of fear that the $250 million will disappear, and the MTA will slip further into the red as time goes by. A healthy MTA can spur the economy just as much as a reorganized tax code. Just ask these guys.
Dec
05
Under fire, MTA’s payroll tax revenue seemingly secure
Posted by: | CommentsNow that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has pledged to overhaul New York’s tax code, Senate Republicans are chomping at the bit to do away with the controversial payroll mobility tax. As The Daily News reported last night, Senate leaders may even find a way to modify the tax without impacting the MTA’s bottom line.
“We have had some discussions about modifications on it — in certain ways for certain businesses — where it may be a little onerous,” one state source said. “It wouldn’t be money removed from the MTA because the MTA needs the money.”
According to the News, small businesses and parochial schools would likely be reimbursed for taxes, but even that relief doesn’t appease state Republicans who want the measure repealed entirely. That is, of course, an untenable position for the MTA. “It generates about $1.4 to $1.5 billion a year and it’s very important that we maintain that level of revenue to main our level of services,” the incoming MTA CEO and Chairman Jospeh Lhota said in an interview. “[The State legislatures] set tax policy; it’s their decision. I’m not a state legislator; I cannot support it one way or the other.”
With all of this politicking going on, Daily News columnist Pete Donohue has called upon the New York GOP to “drop the farce” of a payroll tax repeal effort. Donohue takes Sen. Jack Martins to task for his uninformed and misleading comments concerning the payroll tax.
“The idea that the MTA could provide anything remotely close to a safe and affordable service after such a financial pounding is fantasy,” Donohue writes. “That’s fitting because the whole Republican proposal is based on the fictional notion that the subway system is overly and unfairly subsidized by the suburbs.”
As Donohue notes, LIRR riders pay 47.8 percent of the railroad’s operating costs while NYC Transit riders are on the hook for 58.6 percent. Combine that reality with the fact that it’s nearly impossible to replace $1.4 billion in annual revenue, and the payroll tax should be safe. If it isn’t, that will spell trouble for our transit system.
Nov
16
Subway operations: one for the city or one for the state?
Posted by: | CommentsSince earning an appointment to the MTA, Joseph Lhota hasn’t said anything at all to the press. He co-signed a letter to New York City district attorneys concerning assaults on MTA employees, but he won’t be giving one-on-one interviews to the press until after his State Senate confirmation hearing. Instead, we’re left with the public record of a one-time Giuiliani official who has little transit experience and has spent the bulk of the past decade in the private sector.
Today in The Times, Michael Grynbaum unearths a gem. During the 1999 brouhaha over a controversial art exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum, then-Deputy Mayor Lhota discussed his views on MTA control in a sworn deposition. As Grynbaum reports, Lhota espoused a view that has generated some debate over the years:
In 1999, while serving as Rudolph W. Giuliani’s deputy mayor, Mr. Lhota stated in a deposition that if he had his way, the responsibility for New York’s subways and buses would lie fully with City Hall, not with the state. “I do wish we controlled the transit authority,” Mr. Lhota said at the time. “I have gone to Albany constantly in my capacity as budget director, because I don’t think the way the transit authority works with the City of New York is very appropriate.”
Reminded of his comments in a brief interview on Tuesday, Mr. Lhota laughed, groaned and then said emphatically that he no longer held the same position. “I believed it then,” he said. “I don’t believe it now.”
…On Tuesday, Mr. Lhota cheerfully conceded that under the Giuliani administration, he was occasionally frustrated by the city’s lack of oversight of the transit system. “It is a matter of perspective,” he said. “I think that statement was consistent with what most budget directors in New York would have said.” But he added, “I do believe the management of the M.T.A. is in much better shape today than it was then, and I do not subscribe to the same thoughts.”
The context and Lhota’s comments are nearly incidental to the idea that has long since plagued New York: Who should be in control of the New York City subway system? For the first half of subway history, New York City was responsible for the subways. Mayor La Guardia oversaw an ambitious reunification plan that brought the IRT and BMT under direct city control, and the Board of Estimates set budgets and fare policies.
Although it made sense for the city to oversee its transit network, the bureaucratic and political structure was rife with problems. Candidates for office turned the subway’s nickel fare into a campaign issue, and from 1904-1948, the fare remained five cents even as inflation devalued that nickel. Eventually, thanks to overly ambitious plans to build out the IND lines and the declining fare revenue, overseeing the subways nearly drove the city to bankruptcy.
When the state assumed control of the subway system and eventually created the MTA, it did so for purposes of financing. Surplus from the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority helped cover the subway operating deficit, and eventually the state folded the regional transit network — including buses and commuter rail — into the MTA in an attempt to streamline operations. Without proper legislative support and authorization, it hasn’t always succeeded.
At this point in time, we know of the problems with the MTA. The state legislature refuses to own the problems; New York City disclaims as much interest as possible. It is at once everyone’s and no one’s problem. If the city were to assume control of the subway, as Lhota proposed in 1999, the state would quickly roll back a lot of funding, and the city would have to find those dollars. On the other hand, any such rollback could come with an expansive home rule grant that could allow the city to toll bridges or institute congestion pricing without Albany approval.
For now, of course, nothing will happen with MTA control. The state will continue to maintain its oversight, and the city, which isn’t interested, won’t be arguing for a larger role in subway management. It’s been that way for nearly six decades, and it won’t change any time soon.
Nov
07
A whole Lhota problems loom for the MTA
Posted by: | Comments
Joseph Lhota will assume his role atop the MTA with a long list of worries.
As the MTA has weathered one financial crisis after another and as the agency has gone through various CEOs, chairmen and executive directors over the past five years, the authority’s political situation hasn’t improved. Elected officials use the MTA as a personal piñata, highlighting the ills of the bloated bureaucracy while ignoring the systemic problems that stem from Albany’s unwillingness to answer tough questions about transportation policy. It’s little wonder the MTA’s most qualified leaders have left or been pushed out long before their terms are up.
This week marks yet another new era as Joseph Lhota takes over as interim head of the MTA. Nominated a few weeks ago by Andrew Cuomo, Lhota won’t lose the interim title until the State Senate gets around to approving him, but those hearings aren’t expected to reach the legislative calendar until January. When they do, you can bet that representatives will pepper Lhota with everything they’ve got with a special focus on the payroll tax, but in the meantime, the MTA’s problems wait for no one.
In advance of Lhota’s star turn atop the MTA, Crain’s New York, one of the most influential business magazines in New York that really seems to get it with respect to transit policy, has some advice for Lhota. The paper’s editorial board wants the new chair, without his transit background, to continue to move the MTA forward, and to do so, they urge him to follow the path forged over the past two years by Jay Walder. Essentially, they want Lhota to be Walder but with the backing of Cuomo and the focus on streamlining management which allowed Lhota to draw praise when he served New York City under Rudolph Giuiliani.
To welcome Lhota, Crain’s warns that he is “in for a wild ride.” The MTA suffers from “an image problem, a budget problem, a political problem and a labor problem: It has a reputation for overspending, its capital plan could soon run out of money, it is distrusted by legislators, and its unions are obstinate.” Sounds like a fun job, no? They continue:
Despite all that, the MTA is in better shape than most U.S. transit systems. Midday trains in Washington, D.C., for example, show up only every 20 minutes. But no American city relies more on mass transit than New York, so forget the comparisons. The point to remember is that the better the MTA functions, the more our regional economy flourishes. When the fragile, century-old system breaks down, the economic loss is incalculable.
That is often forgotten because critics focus on the MTA’s spending, which could reach $17 billion next year. Of course, we agree that fiscal efficiency is also important—both to limit fare increases and to make politicians amenable to increasing transit funding. The MTA has a larger budget than most states and is routinely mocked by the media, making it easy for elected officials to bluster about its wastefulness. But the outgoing chief, Jay Walder, squeezed $4 billion out of the five-year capital plan, slashed $525 million from annual operating expenses (only $93 million through service cuts) and trimmed 10% from the $550 million overtime budget—a creditworthy performance. Mr. Lhota must persuade lawmakers that the agency has become leaner, and get them to fund the next three years of the agency’s capital plan so the MTA doesn’t resort to running up debt.
Mr. Lhota is known for his political skills and connections, but it will be hard for him to get help from the Republican-controlled state Senate, which voted this year to eviscerate the payroll tax that sends the MTA $1.5 billion a year. Assembly Democrats killed that legislation but show no sign of providing the funding increase the MTA needs to maintain buses, trains and tracks. Mr. Lhota should remind the Legislature that every failure of old MTA equipment not only inconveniences thousands of riders but costs businesses and the government money.
Crain’s advises Lhota on a few of the challenges he faces over the next few months. The business magazine wants the new MTA head to focus on arcane work rules as he negotiates with the TWU, and they want him to use cost savings to fund capital projects and not, as the union will want, wage increases. They also want Lhota to ensure that Cuomo is more responsive to the needs of transit riders and signs the lockbox bill that has languished on his desk for months.
Transit, ultimately and much to my chagrin, isn’t an issue that riles up voters as much as it should. Generally, straphangers who ride the subways are more attuned to those politicians who bash the MTA for failing to provide “adequate service” while constantly raising fares and cutting costs, routes or cleaning positions. Yet, that failures stems from the actions of those who oversee the MTA and its funding apparati. If Lhota has a mandate to cut, cut, cut, the MTA won’t be any better off in two years than it is today, but if the new head is willing to take the political clout he has to improve the system, moving forward won’t be an unattainable goal.
Oct
27
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?
Oct
20
Lhota named to replace Walder atop the MTA
Posted by: | CommentsJoseph Lhota, a former Giuliani official, has been named chairman and CEO of the MTA.
Jay Walder’s replacement atop the MTA now has a name and a politically pedigree, but much like the new incoming head of the Port Authority, he doesn’t have a resume replete with transit experience. After conducting an extensive search and interview process over the last few months, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has named Joseph Lhota, a MTA Board member and one-time deputy mayor during the Giuliana Administration, to succeed Jay Walder as CEO and Chairman of the MTA. Nuria Fernandez will serve as the authority’s Chief Operating Officer.
“I am pleased to accept the recommendation of the extraordinary search committee and nominate Joe Lhota to be the next chairman and CEO of the MTA,” Governor Cuomo said this afternoon. “Joe Lhota brings one-of-a-kind managerial, government, and private sector experience to the job and a lifelong commitment to public service that will benefit all straphangers. I look forward to working together as we continue to reform the MTA, reduce costs, and improve service for New Yorkers. I thank the members of the MTA Search Advisory Committee for their diligent work and thorough review.”
The search committee had also recommended Neil Peterson and current Transit president Thomas Prendergast as potential replacements for Walder, but Lhota earned the Governor’s stamp of approval. “Millions of New Yorkers depend on the MTA every day and they deserve the most efficient and effective service. Throughout my career in both the public and private sectors, I have initiated reforms that are performance-based and that cut costs, and I look forward to bringing this same approach to the MTA,” Lhota said.
Lhota, who will begin serving as the interim head of the MTA later this year and must face a Senate confirmation process, first came to light as a potential candidate last week. At a time when the MTA must confront intense union negotiations and a multi-billion-dollar gap in the capital funding plan, Lhota will be expected to serve as a manager during tense times. No stranger to New York State government, Lhota served as the Deputy Mayor for Operations under Rudy Giuliani and spent time as the city Budget Director as well.
While Budget Director, Lhota, according to the governor’s press release, “cut costs, led agency reorganizations and consolidations, and implemented performance-based strategic planning,” and it’s clear that he is expected to do the same with the MTA. Fernandez, his new COO, was the one-time head of the Chicago Airport Systems and has served as an executive with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority. She has significant transit planning experience in the private sector as well.
Lhota, who will receive a salary that will be five percent less than Walder’s, has a full plate. Senate Republicans are still making noises about repealing the payroll tax — a move that would cripple the MTA — while riders want more frequent service and cleaner trains without having to pay a higher fare. Few people, it seemed, really wanted to inherit the CEO/Chairman job, and Lhota will have to convince skeptical New Yorkers and transit advocates who fear more service cuts that he’s up to the task.
Various members of the governor’s search committee praised the selection — some with more hyperbole than others. “The ideal candidate to lead the MTA is experienced in finance, business, and government, and cares deeply about public service. Joe Lhota meets all of these criteria, and I can think of no one better suited to this critical position,” Richard Ravitch said.
Other advocates were a bit warier. “We hope Mr. Lhota’s business acumen will help guide the agency towards more sound fiscal footing without compromising service and affordability for the system’s 8.5 million daily riders,” Kate Slevin from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign said. “We also hope he will continue the innovative service improvements executed by his predecessor, including subway countdown clocks, rapid bus service, and nonstop tolling.”
Lhota, who Robert Yaro of the RPA called a “fiscally prudent and seasoned manager,” will face increased scrutiny over the next few months as he readies for the job and undergoes what is sure to be a loud confirmation hearing. As Paul Steely White, the head of Transportation Alternatives, said, “To succeed, Joseph Lhota must continue Jay Walder’s commitment to transit riders. With the MTA facing a $9.9 billion gap in its capital budget, New Yorkers want an MTA Chair will ensure that elected officials increase the funding needed to maintain the public transit system and prevent further fare hikes and service cuts.” Savior or stop-gap, Lhota will have to deliver.
Oct
20
Ravitch: Bridge tolls should help fund transit
Posted by: | CommentsAs the whispers grow louder that Gov. Andrew Cuomo will nominate former Giuliani confidante Joseph Lhota as the next MTA head, former authority leaders and transit advocates are weighing on the challenges facing Jay Walder’s replacement. Yesterday, we heard from Gene Russianoff, and today, Richard Ravitch chimes in. In an interview with New York 1, he warned that the next MTA head will face a tough job environment.
With Albany reluctant to act sensible measures designed to identify sources of transit revenue and protect MTA funding, the MTA and person leading it must become a politician willing to ask tough questions, Ravitch said. “You have to persuade a lot of people to spend a lot of money, whether they are taxpayers or whether they are transit riders,” said Ravitch. To maintain and grow the system, to provide better service and cleanear subways, as everyone wants, it’s going to cost money.
To find the dollars, Ravitch continued to pound the drum he’s been beating since he released his report urging sensible funding mechanisms for the MTA: toll the free East River bridges. Keeping these bridges free while other crossings aren’t harms the city’s economy by creating congestion and the environment. Ultimately, fare hikes every two years are inevitable as the MTA’s debt payments escalate, but until Albany stops forcing the MTA to pay for its capital program with credit card, that’s the price we all have to pay.
Oct
19
Russianoff: Next MTA head must be ‘vocal advocate for transit’
Posted by: | CommentsIn two days, Jay Walder will depart from his position atop the MTA and begin to prepare for his lucrative move to Hong Kong. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, then, will become front and center in the debate over transit. He will have to own up to the impact of making his own choice for head of the MTA and can no longer fall back on the idea that Walder was someone else’s choice and the MTA someone else’s problem. With rumors of Joseph Lhota’s impending nomination swirling, Cuomo has yet to make an official announcement, but that likely could come before Friday.
Once Cuomo does name names, all eyes in the transit community will shift to that person. We’ll inspect the process behind his nomination, his credentials and his plans for an agency eternally mired in an economic crisis. To that end, Gene Russianoff, head of the Straphanagers Campaign and a member of the search committee tasked with finding candidates to lead the MTA, has some ideas for Jay Walder’s eventual replacement. Ride the system, know the riders and their concerns and be an advocate for them, he says in a column in today’s Daily News. It’s obvious advice, but past heads have no always heeded such a call.
Beyond the need to restore customer relations as a priority at the MTA, Russianoff also urges the next MTA head to wade into the explosive politics surrounding transportation. The next MTA head needs to work with unions to smooth over rocky relationships while improving efficiency, and the person Cuomo names should urge the Governor to sign the Transit Lockbox Bill. Reducing borrowing while further improving transparency are on the list as well. It’s tough to argue with Gene’s list, and now we wait to find out if the next MTA Chair and CEO is up to the task.
