September 2008

While we spent much of Tuesday discussing the controversial and brilliant idea to turn over control of the East River bridges to the MTA, not every bit of testimony from the first Ravitch Commission hearings were as sensational as that one. Yet, each idea will be given equal weight by Ravitch as he attempts to come up with some grand fix.

Over at Streetsblog, Ben Fried ran down the day’s other themes. I’ve excerpted the relevant parts:

Responsibility for adequately funding the MTA should fall on those who benefit from its services. This encompasses a fairly broad swath of people, including straphangers, the real estate industry, and car commuters (who get less traffic on the street when more people use transit)…Several people testified that some form of road pricing or bridge tolling would be an additional stream of revenue consistent with this philosophy.

The MTA needs more consistent and reliable revenue streams. Congestion pricing fits the bill in this regard, too. The need for predictable revenue also led speakers to suggest more broad-based taxes…Kevin Corbett of the Empire State Transportation Alliance recommended both road pricing and a payroll tax…

The city and state have been derelict in their contributions to the MTA, and debt financing has gone too far. [Ed. Note: I’ve covered this issue in depth over the last few months. It is a point worth repeating.]

It is reasonable, even desirable, to institute regular and predictable fare increases, but straphangers are currently shouldering too much of the burden… Through the farebox, MTA riders fund 55 percent of the agency’s operating costs, the highest share in the nation…Corbett appeared to encapsulate the general sentiment when he called for “modest and regularly scheduled [fare increases], not more than once every other year.”

The MTA must become more efficient and financially transparent. Many speakers praised the progress Lee Sander has made in streamlining the MTA, and just as many wanted to see further opportunities for efficiency identified. Two speakers, Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign and City Comptroller Bill Thompson, recommended creating an independent watchdog agency to monitor the MTA’s finances.

These suggestions clearly run the gamut from desirable (congestion pricing) to politically unfeasible (payroll taxes) to guardedly unnecessary — an independent watchdog would just add another layer of bureaucracy to an organization trying to shed unnecessary positions.

What these ideas do suggest, however, is that the MTA has options other than a fare hike that they need to explore in full. The agency big wigs would have to lobby our state legislature and city leaders to secure more funding and a congestion pricing; they could reorganize the entire MTA agency. But in the end, these ideas must be exhausted before a fare hike is instituted.

I don’t know what Ravitch’s final recommendations will look like. For the committee to be effective and for the MTA to have a chance at securing some kind of governmental approval to a controversial plan such as congestion pricing, Ravitch’s final report will have to take a strong position on one recommendation. Anything more than that will become a muddled mix of solid policy that doesn’t make for a good talking point, and the MTA would face the same issues with which the Barack Obama campaign is grappling when it comes to the economy.

But no matter the outcome, the MTA should follow up on and each every bit of testimony they hear this week. Congestion pricing may be the best outcome for the MTA and for the city, but they should explore selling the bridges and streamlining agency operations too. Every little — and big — bit helps.

While Wall Street was suffering through its worse day since Sept. 2001, leading transit advocates gathered at NYU to testify on the state of the MTA’s finances. In the first Ravitch Commission hearing, leaders from all walks of New York public life stressed the need for a lifeline of money from New York City and State. The MTA, they warned, could face dire consequences if the MTA’s fiscal health is not restored.

I spent much of Monday at NYU but in classes. So I missed the hearings. Luckily, the good folks from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign were on hand to report on the testimony:

Leading transportation, environmental and labor groups warned today that New York faced major fare hikes, and cuts in transit service and vital repairs unless new City and State aid is raised to address the MTA’s “titanic” financial problems.

The warning came at the first public hearing of the State Commission on MTA Financing. The Commission – appointed by Governor David Paterson and headed by former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch – is charged with recommending ways to meet the MTA’s financial needs over the next ten years. Its report is due out by December 5th.

In July, the MTA officially announced major operating deficits in its $6 billion operating budgets for 2009 and 2010. The deficits are caused in large part by declining tax revenues in a bad economy; rising fuel costs; and the impact of years of massive borrowing to finance badly needed repairs.

More alarming, TSTC reports, is the current state of the MTA as one of the nation’s leading debtors. At a time when the country is falling into crippling debts, the MTA is the country’s fifth leading public debtor. Only New York City and three states owe more money. Clearly, the MTA cannot remain solvent and operate a viable transit network for a region of nearly 19 million people.

“Years of borrowing as a result of the City and State’s disinvestment in mass transit are coming to a head as the price of fuel has drawn many new people to transit, with total ridership up in the last year by more than 5% on the subways. What’s more, the proposed hikes would come at a time when working and middle class New Yorkers are already struggling with a rising cost of living, and real economic hardship,” TWU President Roger Toussaint said.

Toussaint testified on Monday along with prominent activits such as Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, Kevin Crobett of the Empire State Transportation Alliance, Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association and Kate Slevin of TSTC. As each organization head passed through the commission sessions, they all had the same message.

“Failure to make the necessary investments in the critical transportation infrastructure would severely hamper New York’s economic viability. We simply can’t allow this to happen,” Corbett said.

As Monday’s market crash proceeded as expected — and Tuesday promises to be no better — the MTA is certainly facing an uphill battle. New York State doesn’t have any money; New York City doesn’t have any money; and the Federal Government is too busy bailing out the country’s housing market to focus on the New York City transit network. But the ramifications for our region and for our nation are just as drastic.

Without a viable transit network, New York City will face a precipitous decline. In all sectors, the New York economy will suffer, and as we’re seeing on Wall Street, when New York suffers, the rest of the nation will suffer. It doesn’t have the cachet of a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac, but in its own way, more than just New Yorkers rely on the MTA.

In the end, the Ravitch Comission will probably tell the city and state to spend more money. The panel will probably recommend a congestion fee as well. And in the end, our elected officials won’t respond. As Paul S. White, head of Transportation Alternatives said, “The MTA’s problem is clear: The City and State have inadequately funded mass transit for years. The formula for funding mass transportation should be changed.”