Three weeks later, Sander’s words ring hollow

It is a sad thing to sit here yearning for the days of early March. With the future of New York City’s subways laid out to us by MTA CEO and Executive Director Elliot Sander, we were so full of hope and optimism. We were even discussing that famous circumferential subway line as though it would actually become a reality before 2050.

Now, we sit here, crushed by the MTA’s decisions to postpone the promised service upgrades and downgrade their target goal for on-time train performance. While the finger-pointing can go on, these feelings of despair and pessimism can be traced to four sentences in Sander’s State of the MTA address:

I have reviewed our 2008 revenues to date, which are in line with our budget projections. As a result, I will recommend to the Board that we move ahead with the service enhancements included in the financial plan.

That means $30 million dollars in new service this year. Our customers will benefit from increased service on 11 subway lines, extended and new bus routes, additional commuter rail trains and cars on LIRR and Metro-North, and improved customer communications.

On March 3, the MTA had the money. By March 24, the funds were gone, a victim of…something. On the record, MTA officials say that February and March tax revenues came in at levels lower than expected. But if February’s revenues were lower, why did Sander state unequivocally on March 3 that the MTA would begin institute service upgrades this year?

While the Bear Stearns collapse has shaken our economy, the MTA is on the verge of a $1-billion deal with Tishman Speyer for the Hudson Yards rights. They may get their congestion pricing revenue too. All signs are pointing, then, to a credibility gap. The MTA needs more accountability in its book-keeping.

Enter Christine Quinn. The New York City Council Speaker spoke out today in favor of congestion pricing. Said Quinn:

“It speaks to what we have heard from the City Council before, to real challenges in the way the MTA keeps its book or does not keep its books…To me this is a strong reason why we need congestion pricing. It’s a reason why we need a separate, sustainable revenue stream targeted at mass transit expansion in the city of New York. We need that money to go somewhere separate where the MTA’s board is not the final and only authority over it…Where there’s city representation.”

As congestion pricing comes up for a vote, I am beginning to think that city officials are finally going to start implementing closer oversight of the MTA’s finances. For the second time in as many fare hikes, what the MTA is saying and what the MTA is doing don’t match. In 2003, the MTA said they needed the hike to stay fiscally solvent when Alan Hevesi later discovered that the MTA had money to spend. This time around, the MTA promised us service upgrades that now are suspended indefinitely.

If the City Council thinks congestion pricing is the way to bring transparency to the MTA’s financial records, then it’s time to get on board. The MTA is a public benefits corporation, and it’s time to reclaim the benefits the agency should deliver to the public.