It’s the season of fare hike grandstanding for public officials. Yesterday, Andrew Saul, MTA Vice Chair and Republican Congressional hopeful, announced his politically expedient opposition to the fare hike. Today, our embattled Governor Eliot Spitzer has done the same. While this seems like a move to shore up his waning popularity, Spitzer is employing a rational that I think is fatally flawed to justify his opposition to the fare hike.
As many news outlets have reported (City Room, Daily Politics – Spitzer held a press conference and issued a statement outlining his opposition to the proposed hike:
I have been closely following the public hearings on the potential fare hike by the MTA and I’ve listened to the public’s serious concerns about paying more, especially while times are tight. At the same time, I am acutely aware of the need for state agencies and authorities to be fiscally responsible, pay down debt and plan for the future. So as the MTA considered a fare hike, my chief concern was making sure that fiscal responsibility was observed and that all avenues were explored before imposing an added burden on the public.
As the MTA updated its budget forecasts, their balance sheet yielded an additional $220 million. Based on the current economic climate that has so many New Yorkers feeling squeezed, it seemed only proper that this amount be returned to the riders. I am therefore calling on the MTA to use these funds to reduce the proposed fare and toll increase.
As City Room notes, Spitzer is talking solely about the $2 base fare here. He simply wants the other increases to be toned down a bit. However, considering that the Metrocard Vending Machines accept increases that are multiples of $0.25, the MTA can’t really lower the anticipated fare hike. While mentioning the economics of the current day, Spitzer ignores the environment. The MTA should be raising toll rates, in my opinion, to discourage driving and fund mass transit options along those road routes.
But that’s not the big flaw. Rather, Spitzer’s belief that the $220 million represents a satisfactory amount of money for the MTA ignores the MTA’s own budget projections. The MTA right now is predicting potential deficits of over $4 billion between now and 2011 if they don’t raise the fares. Even if those estimates are wrong on a magnitude of $220 million a year, that steal leaves the authority approximately $3 billion in debt because they have to repay outstanding debts from when the Authority refused to raise the fares in the 1970s. Have we not learned our history lessons yet?
Until someone else can come up with a long-term plan for the MTA’s economic health that allows for system growth and financial strength, I will support this fare hike. To me, it seems that Spitzer is another public official speaking out against something that he knows is inevitable in order to curry favor with a public that has largely turned against him.
Give us a solution or stay silent. Enough with the pandering at the expense of the MTA. The Authority is too important the long-term success of New York City to become a political pawn again.
7 comments
Ben, I have to disagree on the fare hike. It’s terrible policy, the worst type of regressive tax, the one way to guarantee you hit virtually all working class people in the pocket, while the wealthiest skate past.
Those who take taxis and black cars and drive all benefit from the mass transit system, which keeps untold thousands of lower income people off the streets, which is one reason I support congestion pricing.
But the way we need to fix the funding problem is with higher funding from the city and the state. A dedicated funding stream from some form of congestion pricing, ranging from the Bloomberg plan to the Ketcham plan, is also necessary. Adding in residential parking permits for adjacent neighborhoods would provide another income stream (permits and violations) for transit funding.
But at it’s most basic, we have had a major policy failure that has been allowed to fester for years, and balancing the books on the backs of transit riders is the worst possible solution (other than bankrupting the MTA).
Gary, I agree with some of what you say, but overall, until a better option is on the table. I’ll support the fare hike.
There’s no doubt, as I wrote two months ago, that the fare hike is a regressive tax that hits lower class people the hardest. Even a $3-$5 raise in the cost of a 30-day monthly is problematic for many people who rely on the subways.
I agree with you that congestion pricing revenue should be used to fund mass transit. That being said, it will take at least a year after congestion pricing is implemented for the money to start flowing to the MTA. The city first has to cover the initial costs of installing a complex monitoring system for the congestion pricing.
I agree with you that the MTA needs funding from the city and state, and I’m all on board for residential parking permits throughout the city. Why should people get to park for just a few dollars in hour in spots that could be churning out some serious revenue for the city?
But right now, the MTA needs a solution quickly to address rapidly growing budget deficits, and until Spitzer or someone else steps in with a plan that’s ready to go, the fare hike is the only act-now plan. I don’t like that this is our reality, but I have no choice but to support until something better that can be implemented right away is on the table.
[…] 2nd Ave. Subway History « Spitzer speaks out – wrongly – against the fare hike […]
[…] news flew fast and furious yesterday following the Spitzer press conference and the MTA’s announcement that they would be scaling back the fare hike. When the dust […]
[…] With a price tag of $21.3 billion from 2005 to 2009, these projects and regular maintenance all cost a large chunk of change. Right now, the city and state are kicking in just 19 percent of that funding while the feds are throwing in 31 percent and the MTA through bonds and other funds sources is generating the rest. That 19 percent is up from 2 percent during the early years of this decade. No wonder the MTA is skeptical that the state and city will deliver on Spitzer’s promise of money. […]
[…] the plan. Then, in an effort to bolster his flagging image, New York’s Gov. Eliot Spitzer strongly urged the MTA to keep the base fare at $2 and scale the back the hikes. The MTA obliged, and now […]
[…] is not a new story. In November, when Eliot Spitzer spoke out against the fare hike, I lambasted him for ignoring the financial realities of the MTA’s situation, and I wrote about how […]