As part of the political give-and-take between the state legislature and the MTA, the leadership structure of the transit agency will soon undergo a change. Right now, Elliot Sander is the full-time CEO and executive director of the authority while Dale Hemmerdinger is the part-time, unpaid chairman of the board.
The new scheme is part of the State Senate’s over-the-top and largely unnecessary effort to draw more transparency out of one of the more transparent public-benefit corporations around. Instead of two men sharing power, only one person will occupy the full-time paid position of chairman and CEO. If this streamlined leader so choose, he or she may bring on an executive director, but that executive director will be subordinate to the chairman/CEO.
With this framework on the way, the speculatin’ has begun: Who will stay? Who will go? Who will replace whom?
Right now, the answers to these questions are unclear. In March, I reported on a story concerning the future of Elliot Sander. At the time, anonymous whisperings indicated that Sander would lose his job and that David Paterson will appoint one of his own to fill the top slot. Remember, Sander is an Eliot Spitzer appointee.
Today, the news looks a little different. As the Daily News reports, the legislature has just killed Hemmerdinger’s job. While the real estate developer was to be in charge until 2011, the legislature has given him 30 more days on the job.
While transit advocates hope that Sander and his policy wonk background stay on the job, Bobby Cuza reported today that Sander’s fate is unknown. “I think it’s really up to the governor to decide. This is a really important position in terms of the State of New York, and I really think it’s up to the governor,” Sander said to NY1.
I’d stick with Sander. He’s become the face of a beleaguered transit agency, and I think he’s done an admirable job steering the MTA through an unavoidable and unsolvable crisis. He has a vision for the future and could produce a sound transit policy for New York City. Soon enough, though, we’ll see what David Paterson, the only man whose vote counts, has to say.
19 comments
What makes you say that? Have you looked at all the other public-benefit corporations, or are you just assuming that the MTA has to be transparent because you like it?
Are you aware of any public-benefit corporation that publishes all of its financial records, all of its construction plans and live broadcasts all of its board meetings?
I believe the California High-Speed Rail Authority does – and that’s a corporation that almost everyone thinks is ineffective and at times corrupt; even its defenders mostly agree, but chalk it up to its being underfunded.
Other corporations I don’t know about, either way. Do you?
I’m talking about in New York though.
The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. does not. The ODC exists solely because of a real estate lease. That seems like a reliable PBC to me. And the rest go through varying degrees of transparency. The list of NYS PBCs is here.
New York isn’t the only city in the world.
The LMDC and ODC are small in scope, at least when compared to the MTA. The LMDC exists to rebuild World Trade Center; the MTA exists to provide transportation to 12 million people. The appropriate comparison isn’t to the LMDC, or the ODC, an authority that exists to get overcoat companies to locate in the city; it’s to transportation agencies around the world, such as Transport for London, the RATP, Toei and Tokyo Metro, and Seoul Metro and Korail.
Perhaps, but the burden is on those that claim the MTA has poor transparency to provide a point of reference for the charge, to give it some definition. The biggest difference between the MTA and the RATP that I see is their level of funding per passenger, a performance correlation you don’t seem to care for.
No, the funding per passenger is about the same. The difference is in fares – the Métro has lower fares than the subway, but more revenue from external sources, chiefly a sales tax that ranges from 1.2% in the exurbs to 2% in Paris.
Wait – I misread. No, CHSRA doesn’t broadcasts board meetings – it broadcasts outreach meetings. But it does publish construction and design plans, to the extent that it has any.
The MTA has refused to release a list of there real estate holdings and there value. That’s not very transparant.
I have no confidence in Paterson to fill the position with a qualified person if he chooses to go that route.
This is circular logic. You’re pinpointing something the MTA hasn’t released as a sign that they aren’t transparent. What about all of the rest of the things for which they are transparent? You want budgets and financial statements? Sure, they could be more transparent but not in the areas in which the Senate believes them to be untransparent.
I am just simply stating that they have refused to release this list. I have my opinion on the reasons why they don’t want that information to get out.
Real estate has been one of the MTA’s biggest money wasting ventures over the years and continues to be a problem today.
The real estate issue is a red herring. In a good market, they could get maybe a few hundred million for the Jay St. holdings of theirs that are worth the most. So that’s a one-time source of revenue that doesn’t come close to matching their deficit.
They’re in the process of selling Hudson Yards and Atlantic Yards which fetch the most, and beyond that, it’s more a headline issue than an actual real issue.
Yes, they’re in the process of selling Atlantic Yards, for half the estimated market price.
Ben,
Whether the MTA is especially transparent is beside the point. The governance changes actually were a component of the Ravitch report and do seem to make some sense. Whether Paterson reappoints Sander or someone else the governance changes make sense. I know of no reason to dislike Sander, but its also extremely hard to find any evidence on his performance one way or the other. The MTA itself is not particularly well run, however, even if you happen to like it. Historically, the transit systems problems all began when the system was placed under the control of a public authority, and its almost certainly time to reexamine the structure that is in place.
Avif: You’ve basically made the point I was trying to make but failing to make. You’re right.
I’m not defender of the MTA. While they may earn points for transparency, the authority is not particularly well run, and it’s institutional problems run deep. You’re right about this move being in the Ravitch Report and you’re right to say that it’s time to reexamine the structure that’s in place.
Yonah at the transport politic wrote a great piece on authorities last month. That features a lot of the issues with the MTA.
I certainly agree that the MTA could certainly use some serious rethinking of its organizational structure. I do also have to chime in to Avif to say that you’re wrong in saying that the problems all started when it was placed under control of the Transit Authority.
There’s a reason that the IRT and BMT privately owned lines were taken over and merged with the city owned IND line. The IRT was pretty much bankrupt, thanks to the Depression. The BMT was barely staying afloat and owed a lot of its capital improvements to city financing when it was finally taken over. Besides the fact that the idea of three independently operated subway lines was insane and impractical from the very beginning. The fact that the A division is entirely incompatible with the B division is crazy (but not quite as crazy as the level of incompatibility as Metro-North and LIRR systems). A merged, publicly owned and run system is in the best interest of all New Yorkers. Our biggest problem at the moment is that we need a total clean sweep of both existing parties out of Albany and start from scratch. Both of them are un-reformable and have no material interest to change their ways.
Avif, are you suggesting that we re-privatize the subway? I can’t even begin to imagine the boondoggle that would be.
Public Authorities in New York State are notoriously opaque and ill-managed. First of all their boards are largely all political cronies. The MTA’s transparency issues however pale in comparison to some of the other Authorities, like the Dormitory Authority, the Olympic Authority, the New York Racing Association and the Overcoat Development Authority (yes, its real, look it up). These Authorities however, are sacred cows that are never to be questioned.
I think the MTA while certainly in need or improvement is one of the more transparent Authorities and I commend Ben for being one of the more vocal and consistent writers in pointing this out.
Josh,
You misunderstood my point. I am most definitely not advocating privatization of the subways. In fact, Igenerally advocate the opposite, bringing the subways back under more political control and to abandon the public authority concept, which I think is inherently wasteful and not particularly good at insulating transit decisions from the pettiness of politics. I was actually attempting to distinguish the period of city control of the system from 1941-53 and subsequently when the TA took over and then when the MTA assumed control in 1968, mostly to rid the world of Robert Moses and use the toll revenue to support the subways. The MTA’s management of the system since 1968 has been abysmal – they might take credit for “rebuilding” the system after its collapse in the 1970’s, but they also oversaw that collapse. There needs to be a different approach to management and funding, one that is much more responsive to the public and less reliant on debt to build things.
In terms of the history of the development of the subways, I think you are right that it was crazy to have two competing companies and the lack of interoperability of the IRT and BMT was certainly a bad result, as was the fact that the system is laid out so that the two companies would be competing with each other and then add in the IND which was designed to put both out of business and you have overlapping service and areas that are entirely underserved. I do not think it was the depression that put the two companies out of business, they were well on their way beforehand. They signed contracts with the city intended to protect their monopoly power and agreed to maintain a set fare of five cents in exchange, but never assumed the possibility of inflation.
Why do people blindly say the MTA is not run well? It is by far the most extensive public transportation system in a country that does not do a good job of funding its public transportation systems running systems that were largely designed decades ago. Yet, the system is safe, reliable, and runs 24-hrs a day. Accidents are rare. And the fare for the bus/subway is a bargain.
The financial problems at the MTA are the fault of Pataki and his appointees, who pushed off financial problems until now by reckless borrowing and using short-term surpluses for cutting the fares.
[…] of this resignation came just a few hours after the Senate approved a bill merging the MTA leadership. In March, The Post speculated that Marc Shaw could take over the top […]