After the fare hike vote, finger-pointing and funding proposals

Now that the MTA Board has set in motion the next round of fare hikes, transit advocates have begun to lay out their positions on the MTA’s latest foray into the economic morass. While some people would prefer to lay the blame at the feet of Jay Walder and the rest of the authority, the truth is that Albany has dropped the ball. The legislature in November moved $143 million of dedicated MTA funds into the general fund, and the state’s tax accountants promised more revenue from the payroll tax than the MTA received. Today, fingers are pointed squarely at Albany, and a few groups are clamoring for better solutions.

To highlight the MTA’s plight, the Empire State Transportation Alliance — a coalition of business, civic, labor and environmental organizations that support sound investment in public transportation — voiced its begrudging support for the fare hike. Praising the authority for its “substantial cuts to administration,” the alliance stressed how “the MTA’s financial problems are real.” The organization’s co-chair summed up ESTA’s position. “We support the MTA’s decision move ahead with this scheduled fare increase,” Bob Yaro, also president of the Regional Plan Association. “The alternative would be another disastrous round of service cuts on top of the recent cuts that were necessitated by the Legislature’s decision to divert $143 million in dedicated MTA tax revenues to the state’s general fund.”

Albany’s failures were a key theme to the various statements from advocates and officials from around the spectrum. Paul Steely White, head of Transportation Alternatives, expressed his hope that voters would hold Assembly representatives and State Senators responsible for the MTA’s financial mess. After all, these politicians are the ones who are so cavalier when it comes to transit funding. “The riding public is footing more and more of the bill to keep our transit system running, and all the while the services they rely on are disappearing before their very eyes,” he said. “If our elected officials in Albany think the riding public is going to stomach massive service cuts and a whopping fare hike during an election year, they’ve got another thing coming.”

Kate Slevin, executive director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, also stressed voter accountability. “You can’t just blame the MTA,” she said. “Elected officials who simply point fingers are dodging their responsibility to ensure our region’s transit service remains safe, affordable, and reliable. Voters angry about the recent service cuts, especially bus riders on Long Island, should ask candidates how they plan on dealing with the MTA’s financial crisis.”

The more intriguing calls though were from those advocating for a pricing or tolling solution. The MTA, as Slevin said, should not keep foisting more fares on riders while others — drivers — also enjoy the “congestion busting benefits of our transit system.” Many of these influential voices called for some sort of tolling or congestion plan. “Everyone who benefits from a healthy transit system should help pay for it,” Kevin Corbett, co-chair, ESTA, said. “We understand the short-term need to raise fares and stave off further reductions in service but Albany must return funding taken from the transit system and end the practice of shuffling dedicated MTA tax revenues. New, long term revenues such as tolling must be considered as severe shortfalls in capital and operating funding are on the horizon.”

Gene Russianoff and the Straphangers, in a release decrying the fare hikes, wondered the same thing. “Why,” they asked, “should transit riders pay to cross the East River, but drivers on the East River bridges get a free ride?”

At this late stage in the game, I’d support congestion pricing or East River bridge tolls. Congestion pricing targeted to peak hours and only the Manhattan Central Business District seems to be the more equitable of the pricing solutions. It targets the people who drive as a luxury while those who work at off-hours and commute over far distances that aren’t easily transit accessible won’t be expected to pay as much. Lower tolls could be used during off-hours to supplement congestion pricing or variable tolling could accomplish the same goals. The revenue should be placed in a lockbox that Albany cannot touch and that the MTA can use only for operations.

Right now, though, the state’s politicians aren’t willing to take this step, and the rest of us pay. As Denise Richardson of the General Contractors Association of New York, said, “As we evaluate this fare increase proposal, we have to decide what cuts we will accept in lieu of it. No one likes higher fares, especially at a time when the economy has yet to fully recover and the job market remains weak, but we cannot expect the MTA to maintain the system and balance its books simply by making cuts in administrative personnel.”