Second Ave. Sagas

Category: Fare Hikes

  • With money available, Sander won’t postpone the fare hike

    MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander is facing increased pressure from politicians and advocacy groups to postpone the planned fare hike until the middle of April at the earliest. But as hard as these politicians and transit advocates push, Sander pushes back harder. Yesterday, he was at it again, defending the need for a fare hike despite news the contrary.

    We start with The Daily News. Earlier this week, Pete Donohue reported that unexpected windfalls could provide the MTA with enough money to stave off the fare hike at least temporarily. Basing his argument on the supposed $100 million that the MTA would lose if they delayed the fare hike until April, Donohue notes that the extra $60 million in real estate taxes and a $49 million toll surplus would give the MTA the extra money they need to wait. He also drops in the fact that $50 million was supposed to use on paint jobs could be added to this pot as well.

    Enter Sander. Yesterday, while speaking after the MTA board meeting, Sander stressed the economic need to act on the fare hike sooner rather than later. NY1’s Bobby Cuza has more:

    The head of the MTA says that even with the extra $100 million to $200 million that could be brought in with congestion pricing, the agency just doesn’t have enough in the bank to keep the system up and running without a fare hike…
    The MTA is counting on:

    • $400 million in state aid next year, some of it requiring legislative action;
    • $600 million in new government aid starting in 2010;
    • Legislative approval of congestion pricing, which would raise money for MTA capital projects.

    Sander says the only way a fare hike could be avoided would be for the city and state to come up with another $300 million a year on top of all that.

    While Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, one of the leading voices calling for a postponement of the fare hike, has repeated told Sander to simply ask the state for more money, Brodsky has yet to say he could definitely deliver the needed funds on top of the $1.5 billion the MTA will already get. Sander, not willing to risk a lot of the work and improvements the subway system has enjoyed over the last few years, is loathe rely on what he called a “game of roulette” in Albany.

    “The reality is the MTA is in need of great financial sums from Albany over the next two calendar years,” Sander said. “For us to bank on [state money] when the overall funding need is fares and tolls plus this aid, it puts at risk the system we have worked so hard to build, to rebuild.”

    To me, the outcome of this saga really should hinge on Pete Donohue’s report. If Donohue’s numbers are accurate — and I have no reason to doubt them — the MTA should take this surplus money and use it to stave off the fare hike for a few months. It certainly won’t be the end of the fare hike. But by April, the Authority will be able to actually ask Albany for the money, and the rest of us will have time see if Brodsky can deliver on his promises of more funds. Sander, along with incoming MTA Chair Dale Hemmerdinger, owe the paying public at least that much.

    Photo courtesy of The New York Observer.

  • Everybody to MTA: Hold off on that fare hike

    This fare hike sure is growing into one contentious issue, and everyday, it seems, more and more news hits the airwaves. Today, the news is big: A group of New York politicians and interest groups issued a joint statement urging the MTA to hold off on the fare hike until April 15 at the earliest.

    Why such a precise date, you may wonder? Well, New York’s big wigs believe they can secure additional state and federal funding such that the need for such a drastic fare hike would diminish. For its part, the MTA issued a statement warning once again of its potentially dire financial situation and hinted around that, if this fare hike is delayed, the next one could be worse. More on that in a minute, but first, the story on the politicians.

    Basically, the 22 politicians are highlighting a state government more willing to support the MTA. For 12 years under Gov. George Pataki, funds that should have gone to the MTA were routinely siphoned off to upstate road projects. Now, the politicians are ready to bring some money back to the city. “Fare increases are a last resort,” Richard Brodsky, an assembly member from Westchester, said. “After 12 years of neglect under the Pataki administration, we want to work with the M.T.A., the city and state governments to change the failed policies of the past.”

    Brodsky also noted that, in the past, the MTA had approached what had been a hostile environment in Albany and had been rebuffed. This time, when they wouldn’t be rebuffed, the Authority hadn’t even bothered to ask. It can’t hurt to ask, and it hurts riders the most if the MTA doesn’t do its duty and go hat in hand to Albany.

    Any mention of the 12 years of neglect and state funding is sure to draw New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson’s attention. In August, he issued a comprehensive report detailing how state funds could help the MTA avoid a fare hike overall. Yesterday, he was one of the louder voices calling for a postponed fare hike.

    “The wisest approach is to give our state legislators time to enact legislation that will finally give New York City Transit its fair share of funding, so that any fare increase down the road does not disproportionately affect our area,” Thompson said (and released in this statement). “Before the MTA plans for higher fares and tolls and the next phase of its capital program, the State and the City must provide additional funding to New York City Transit that it is rightly owed.”

    Joining these leading politicians in sending a letter expressing these sentiments to the MTA were, according to Cityroom, the Disabled Riders Coalition, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, the Straphangers Campaign of the New York Public Interest Research Group, Transportation Alternatives, Tri-State Transportation Campaign and Vision Long Island.

    The MTA, of course, isn’t ready to give in, and they are issuing dire warnings about a future without this fare hike. Cityroom notes that Jeremy Soffin, MTA spokesman, issued the following statement yesterday:

    The four-year financial plan that we proposed in July is designed to fill $6 billion in projected deficits while increasing service to meet rapidly growing demand. To fill these gaps, the plan relies on more than $2 billion in new state aid, including almost $400 million next year, and a cost-of-living increase in fares and tolls. Failure to receive either the anticipated state aid or the fare increase will require a more drastic increase and unacceptable service cuts starting in 2009.

    Funny how the MTA expects to receive state aid without even asking. Now, I know the futures of the property taxes that the MTA benefits from are a little shady at best, but I just don’t believe that an agency turning in a surplus right now could really end up in as desperate a situation as the MTA forecasts for itself. I could very well be wrong. But for our sakes as riders, I hope the MTA does its utmost to take up Brodsky and the rest of the New York politicos on their offer, and I hope that the politicians make good on their promises.

    This could easily be the start of a win-wins situation for the MTA, the riders and the politicians looking to curry favor with their constituents. Let’s hope it stays that way.

  • MTA fare hike proposal hits subway riders harder than drivers

    How did we miss this story for so many weeks? According to a report by Jeremy Olshan in The Post, the MTA’s fare hike leaves subway riders footing a higher percentage increase than drivers using the MTA Bridge and Tunnel tolls. In the era of the congestion fee and an increased call for traffic calming in New York, these findings are dismaying to say the least.

    Furthermore, the MTA is partially reiterating its claim that Metrocard vending machines are to blame. Since these machines can support only fare increases in multiples of $0.25, the MTA is limited in its ability to raise the fares across the board. While the city eagerly awaits the outcome of the congestion fee battle, this transgression will not stand, man.

    Olshan elaborates:

    Despite all the talk about congestion pricing and discouraging driving in favor of mass transit, motorists get off equally – and in many cases easier – under the MTA’s proposed fare hikes. The cash toll for bridges and tunnels would rise 11.1 percent, from $4.50 to $5, under the proposal, compared to the 12.5 percent subway hike from $2 to $2.25.

    Of course, only 25 percent of drivers and 15 percent of bus and subway riders pay the base fare. Using EZ-Pass, toll payers would shell out 6.25 percent more as the rate rises from $4 to $4.25, and a five-ride MetroCard would increase the price per ride by 13 to 20 percent.

    In addition to breaking what could become an important subplot in the fare hike debate — especially once those public hearings begins — Olshan tracked down some choice quotes for his piece as well.

    Paul Steely White, head of Transportation Alternatives: “We should be doing more to encourage people to take mass transit instead of driving. They need to not be ashamed to raise those tolls. They should sock it to motorists and give transit riders a break, because it’s the drivers who are contributing to pollution and global warming.”

    Andrew Albert, MTA board member: “There’s no question we should be encouraging transit usage first. I don’t know why you would favor motorists. If anything, they should be hit harder.”

    Jeremy Soffin, MTA spokesman: “The goal is to treat everyone equally and have the increase be as close as possible to 6.5 percent. It’s easier to accomplish that with tolls and EZ-Pass and on the commuter rails. The subway fare is more complicated.”

    Yikes. This is not a good situation for anyone. The MTA comes out looking bad, and subway riders are getting screwed while drivers, the scourge of many New Yorkers, are getting off easy.

    Right now, the easy solution should be the one the MTA is looking into: Raise the tolls on the roads the extent such that they don’t need to shaft subway riders. Drivers should be the ones footing the bill for public transportation considering that many people drive in this city when they don’t have to. A fare hike like that one would be a preemptive congestion fee.

    So how can we get this message to the MTA? Go to the public hearings and demand accountability. Find out why drivers are getting off with a lower percentage increase while subway riders are getting stuck with a higher bill. Nothing about this fare hike is set in stone, and if enough people band together, the proposals can change. It worked with the F express; maybe it can work with the fare hike too.

  • MTA tries to sneak in a higher fare hike

    So the fare hike. We’re talking about that confusing fare hike with the two-tiered fare structure, the supposed off-peak discounted and the upcoming public hearings designed to solicit rider opinion. Well, it ends up that the fare hike is not as straightforward — or as cheap — as was originally reported.

    Since the end of September, all of the fare hike coverage had focused on this off-peak proposal. By charging people $1.50 for off-peak rides, the MTA hopes some riders were eschew rush hour travel for less crowded times. It’s an artificial — but potentially effective — way of alleviating subway overcrowding. But now the bombshell: That $1.50 may just be a pipe dream. According to a report in The Daily News, that off-peak fare could end up being $1.75 instead of the originally reported figure of a $1.50.

    Take it away Pete Donohue:

    The MTA may jack up fares even higher than top staffers proposed in September, the authority revealed on Tuesday as it set hearing dates for riders to sound off.

    Public notices announcing next month’s hearings warn riders that Metropolitan Transportation Authority next year could impose a peak fare of $2.25 – without a discount option that could soften the blow for many rush-hour riders. The base fare is now $2. The notices also for the first time say an off-peak fare – proposed by top MTA staffers last month to be set at $1.50 – could actually cost $1.75.

    According to MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin, these posters were designed to give riders a look at the wider range of options that the MTA board will face in December. The board has to figure out how to raise nearly $600 million in revenue over the next two years, and a $1.75 off-peak fare, which doesn’t represent much of a discount from the current buy-five-rides, get-six deal in place, is just one of many solutions.

    Furthermore, this $1.75 figure isn’t the only surprise on the poster (available here as a PDF). The other changes include reducing or eliminating the bonus on pay-per-ride Metrocards of $10 or more; increasing the cost of a 30-day unlimited card to $84 or $2 more than was originally announced; eliminating the one-day Fun Pass entirely; and increasing the minimum amount on one Metrocard to six dollars or one and a half round trips.

    While the MTA notes that these higher figures are, in the words of Soffin, “not our proposal,” it is dismaying to see even higher figures emerge on the official announcements of public hearings. Considering the fact that New York subway riders are facing a very substantial fare hike, the MTA should be as transparent as possible with its numbers over the next two months.

    We need full public accounting for the fare hike; we need to know how much the fares are going up; we need assurances that we’ll be better better and more reliable service. While I’m hoping for accountability, I fear the smoke and mirrors. These posters are not reassuring.

  • The MTA will listen to your thoughts on the fare hike

    Bonus Card

    That fare hike proposal sure is confusing, no? With one plan presenting a two-tiered fare structures based on peak and off-peak travel times and another a straight-up fare hike but with a higher percentage increase for those using Unlimited Ride cards, it’s hard to keep track of the numbers and how we’re all affected by the economics of it all.

    Enter Jeremy Olshan, the transit beat writer at The New York Post. In a recent article of Olshan’s about the complexities of the fare hike, The Post printed a nifty fare calculator — which, as SUBWAYblogger noted, is really just a table with a drop-down menu, but details — that helps display the differences between the two fare hikes.

    Now, you, dear straphanger, must be wondering why this matters. After all, anyone with a pencil and piece of paper could work out what The Post has to say. Well, it matters because you can use it as a cheat sheet when you go to speak to the MTA about the fare hike. Next month, the MTA will hold eight public hearings on the fare hike.This is your chance to get your voice heard. Want an F Express option in Brooklyn? Make it known now. Want more handicap-accessible stations? Say so.

    Here are the details from the press release:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority today announced the dates and locations for eight public hearings that will be held throughout the region to solicit public input on proposed fare and toll increases…

    In addition to the eight hearings, the public can provide comments at an interactive public engagement workshop, an online web forum (webinar), MTA Board and committee meetings from October through December 2007, and email or letter submissions. All public comments and feedback will help inform the MTA Board’s decision-making process. At the December 2007 Board meeting, it is anticipated that the Board will consider the proposals, or variations of them, and determine which ones, if any, to adopt. More information on the proposed fare and toll changes is also now available on the MTA website.

    A webinar? Great word. And the “more information” mentioned in the press release is available here. Read up and head to those meetings prepared to speak your mind.

    The in-person meetings will be held in every MTA-accessible area — Westchester, Long Island and the five boroughs — and MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander urged disgruntled riders to attend the hearings. “There are more opportunities for public input than ever before, and the MTA is committed to an expanded public process,” Sander said. “We have put forward some new ideas and I look forward to not only hearing what our customers think but engaging in a productive two-way dialogue.”

    Make that dialogue productive. Here’s our chance to really push our suggested improvements in the face of all of those C/C- grades riders keep handing out to the subways. No fare hike without system-wide upgrades!

    After the jump, the locations and dates for all of the hearings. I’ll try to go to the one either in Manhattan or Brooklyn and bring back a full and stimulating report.

    (more…)

  • All’s fare in love and subways

    As the details and inevitability of the upcoming fare hike have come to light, New Yorkers on the whole haven’t been too thrilled. No one wants to pay more when the MTA isn’t providing adequate service — a C is hardly a stunning grade — and is projected an economic windfall this year.

    But we know that the MTA is facing tough economic times, and we understand that the MTA needs to draw in more revenue in order to meet the demands of a growing city and the desires of demanding riders. We can’t expect those C-/C grades to improve if the MTA doesn’t put a little money into the system.

    Meanwhile, the MTA isn’t the only agency dealing with fare hikes and hazy economic outlooks. The WMATA in Washington, DC, will soon be raising their fares by as much as 40 cents per ride. The WMATA charges fares based upon how far a rider travels, and as you could guess, those folks living in the suburbs are none too thrilled about the prospect of bearing the brunt of the fare hike. This debate sure does sound familiar.

    Anyone, with all of these fare shenanigans going on, let’s take a step back for a minute. As mass transit has become one of those things that everyone expects in thriving urban cities but no one wants to pay for, today is as good a day as any to appreciate the New York City subways. Considering the fare, we’re getting one of the better bangs for our buck around the world. It’s time for a fare comparison.

    New York City: Counterintuitively these days, one of the greatest aspects of the MTA and New York City subways are the fares. For a base fare of $2, a rider can go from Far Rockaway to Pelham Bay Park. As the crow flies, that’s around 20 miles. Via the subway, it’s a long trip through Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx. Meanwhile, as the average amount paid per rider is only $1.31, that $2 fare is higher than reality. It’s hard to beat that deal.

    Washington D.C.: With a tiered fare system, the further one travels in the WMATA, the more one pays. The 7.68-mile trip from Silver Spring, Maryland, to Dupont Circle costs $1.85 at off-peak hours and $2.35 most of the day. A trip to the airport can cost over $3. Considering that the New York subways run 24 hours a day and the WMATA’s do not, we’re getting the better deal here.

    Boston: Late in 2006, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority unveiled the CharlieCard, a discounted fare card similar to our Metrocard. With the advent of the CharlieCard, MBTA instituted a discounted fare of $1.85 for card users and a $2 fare for all others. Again, this system is charging more per fare than the MTA with all of those discounts and Unlimited Ride Metrocards, and again, the MBTA operates a system that doesn’t run 24 hours. New York wins.

    London: Considering how weak the dollar is these days, this one isn’t fair (Hah! No pun intended). Transport for London, which has to print a nine-page PDF to explain its fare structure, is no bargain. Much like the Metrocard, TfL offers a discount card called the Oyster card. With the Oyster card, fares within a single zone in London are ?1.50 while a cash fare is ?4. The card fares jump to as high as ?3.50 depending upon how far one is traveling. Talk about expensive. Those fares come out to $3 to $8 in U.S. currency for a single ride. Wow.

    Now, of course, this is a fairly unscientific study, and I cherry picked a few of the American and international subway systems. My point, however, remains the same: For all the moaning and hand-wringing that is going into this fare hike, the New York City subway systems are a fantastic deal. Those other systems have the same problems as ours: They are overcrowded; they are unreliable; and they don’t reach as far as everyone living in those metropolitan areas would like. But when push comes to shove, our system is cheaper than the others, just as fast and open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. With that in mind, I’d even be willing to pay a higher fare.

  • MTA, eyeing 2010 hike, blames the machines for the 2008 raise

    What’s in The Daily News? I’ll tell you what’s in The Daily News. A story about the MTA blaming the MetroCard Vending Machines for what otherwise would have been a smaller fare hike. That’s what in The Daily News.

    My apologies to all of those fans of Guys and Dolls out there, but seriously. The MTA is saying that a flaw in the way the MetroCard Vending Machines are programmed is one of the leading reasons why the 2008 fare hike is set to a quarter instead of just 10 cents. That, ladies and gentlemen, may be a first.

    Pete Donohue, transit writer for The Daily News, has more:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority acknowledged yesterday that one BIG reason it wants a 25-cent bus and subway hike is because its vending machines can dispense only dollar coins and quarters.

    MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin defended the increase as fair and said upping it by a nickel or dime wouldn’t be enough. “The limitations of technology would make a $2.10 fare extremely costly to implement and would provide a much poorer quality of service,” Soffin said.

    Oof. This may go under that ever-special category of Things You Keep to Yourself. Subway guru and Straphanger lawyer Gene Russianoff was outraged for the lot of us. “It’s not acceptable for them to say, ‘The machines are making us do it,’” he said to Donohue. “What are they going to [do] if next time they think there should be a 35-cent hike? Round it off to 50 cents and make us pay?”

    In response to this spate of bad publicity, the MTA announced that they are looking at technological alternatives to the current vending machines. Considering that only 14 percent of subway riders pay in case, searching for something that doesn’t rip off everyone would probably be a good solution here. The MTA is also considering some sort of card for low-income subway riders, but the Authority refused to discuss any details whatsoever of those mysterious program. Maybe they should just step on it with those plans to adopt Smart Card technology.

    In other fare hike news — and I use that term loosely because anyone reading Second Ave. Sagas won’t be too surprised by this information — New York newspapers are making a big stink over the fact that the MTA has plans to raise the fares in 2010. For as long as the MTA has debated this upcoming fare hike, MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander has repeated warned the public that the Authority prefers and would pursue two smaller fare hikes in 2008 and 2010 instead of one larger fare hike when the MTA’s financial picture became too dire.

    As the public becomes more aware of this looming fare hike and its long-term ramifications, people are going to get more annoyed at the MTA. Just you wait.

  • Proposed MTA fare hike the worst kind of regressive tax

    Of all of the charges levied against Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion fee by the plan’s opponents, I am most entertained by those weakly arguing the congestion fee is a regressive tax designed to hit poor more than it affects the rich. Well, newsflash, folks: The poorer people aren’t the ones driving and paying for a car in New York City.

    To find an example, though, of a crippling regressive tax at work, look no further than today’s announcement by the MTA describing the potential fare hikes. The proposal, detailed here by William Neuman of The Times, involves jacking up the base fare and the prices on Unlimited Ride Metrocards, doing away with the buy-five-rides-get-six discount and instituting lower off-peak fares.

    William Neuman, in an earlier post at the Cityroom blog, has more:

    A person who buys a pay-per-ride MetroCard would be charged $2 to ride the subway or bus during the morning and evening peak periods. Travel during off-peak periods, including midday, would cost $1.50. The intention would be to encourage some riders to travel during off-peak hours, which could reduce crowding during the rush periods.

    If that proposal were adopted, the 7-day and 30-day unlimited-ride MetroCards would increase to 8 percent from 6.5 percent. A new 14-day unlimited ride MetroCard would be created, at a cost of $48. The authority would no longer offer 20 percent bonuses for purchases over $10.

    An alternate proposal would involve a more traditional fare increase. The base fare would increase to $2.25 from $2. The pay-per-ride MetroCard would continue to operate as it does today, with riders receiving a 20 percent bonus if they put at least $10 on the card. The cost of weekly and monthly unlimited ride passes would each go up 4 percent. And a new 14-day MetroCard would cost $45.

    Based on this information, the MTA, projected nearly a $1 billion surplus this year, is going to, as Straphanger Campaign lawyer Gene Russianoff noted, foist its desired money onto commuters instead of forcing the state or city to pick up a tab. This development comes after both the state and city comptrollers issued reports noting that common sense measures could result in the necessary financial allocations without the need for a fare increase.

    All of which brings me back to my original point: By charging people more for peak-hour rides, the MTA, if it opts to go with the peak/off-peak plan, will be instituting a regressive tax on everyone who rides the subways to and from work during rush hour. The MTA’s proposal, in an attempt to alleviate overcrowded rush hour subways, penalizes those who commute to work during the rush hour time slots and rewards those who use the subway outside of rush hour.

    But who are the people who must ride the subways during rush hour? And who are the people who can afford to ride the subways in off-peak hours? Generally, those people making the least are the ones riding during the peak hours. The 9-to-5ers with little job flexibility will have to shoulder the burden of the fare increases.

    Meanwhile, people beholden to no one — or few others — can take the subway at a more leisurely and cheaper hour. People who work themselves and set their own hours, people who are their own bosses, they can take the subways during the $1.50-fare periods. The people who are most able to afford the fare hike won’t be the ones suffering because of the fare hike.

    While even the plan simply to have an across-the-board fare hike is a regressive tax, the one with tiered fares is more egregious than the other. The only way to avoid a regressive tax when trying to raise more revenue would be to avoid a fare hike. But as SUBWAYblogger noted, these fare increases, one way or another, are going to be a reality. I just hope those sounding the alarm of the congestion fee as a regressive tax take up the mantle when it comes to opposing this subway fare hike too.

  • MTA urged to delay fare hike until mid-2008

    For the last few months, we’ve heard a litany of calls from politicians urging the MTA to hold off, or outright reject, the upcoming fare hike. The folks who hold the purse strings — the New York State Comptroller and the New York City Comptroller — got in on the act as well. Now, a supergroup of advocates has called on the MTA to hold off on implementing the hike until the middle of 2008.

    These advocates, led of course by the ever-present Gene Russianoff, have released a letter written to MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander, urging him to wait until at least March 31, 2008, to proceed with the fare hike. The letter, available here as a PDF, lays out a compelling case for the delay. Take a look:

    As civic groups concerned with decent transit, we write to urge that if the MTA does adopt a fare increase for 2008, no final action be taken before March 31, 2008, at the earliest …

    Right now, the MTA plan calls for a decision on fares in December 2007, to go into effect in “early 2008.” But we urge that no final action on the fare should happen before March 31, 2008. That’s because two other key actions take effect on that date.

    First, this is the date by which the state legislature and New York City Council have to decide on the recommendations of the traffic congestion mitigation commission recently created by the state legislature. The commission will be considering Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal, which would include new transit funding.

    Second, on that same day, the MTA is required to submit its five-year, multi-billion dollar capital rebuilding plan, giving the public its detailed program for what repairs will be slated between 2008 and 2013. Our groups feel strongly that the whole range of transit funding — from operations to capital needs — should be considered as a whole, rather than piecemeal.

    This is a rock-solid rebuttal to what is beginning to look more and more like an unnecessary-for-now fare hike. Of course, the MTA is pushing back. In an article in today’s Daily News, Jeremy Soffin, MTA spokesman, spoke on the need for financial relief sooner rather than later. “Our financial plan puts the MTA back on sound financial footing while actually increasing service for our ridership,” he said. “Delaying its implementation will only lead to larger fare increases and unacceptable service cuts.”

    But if the city and state come through on the congestion pricing issue, won’t the MTA stand to benefit more by delaying the fare hike until every piece of the financial puzzle can be completed? I think so; Gene Russianoff thinks so; now we just have to hope the MTA thinks so too.

  • The Comptroller will have none of that fare hike

    The Comptrollers are revolting. (Well, then, maybe they should shower. I’ll be here all week.)

    Nearly three weeks after New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., issued a report on how the MTA could avoid a fare hike, the State Comptroller Thomas P. Napoli has issued a similar finding. He says that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should hold off on its fare hike until the agency can huddle with city and state legislatures to develop a cohesive plan to financing public transportation that doesn’t unfairly burden the riders.

    Citing the need to wait until after the congestion pricing panel issues its findings and recommendations, Napoli was fairly critical of the MTA’s willingness to move forward with a fare hike. From his office’s press release:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority should hold off on its fare hike plans until after the City and the State have fully considered the recommendations of the recently established congestion pricing commission and the MTA’s proposed five-year capital program, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli said in a report released today. The MTA has proposed raising fares and tolls in early 2008 and again in 2010 to help address sizeable looming budget gaps.

    “The MTA should put New York’s commuters first,” DiNapoli said. “Before the MTA asks for more money from straphangers, it should develop a coordinated strategy with the State and City to balance its operating budget and to finance the next five-year capital program. The MTA has taken some good first steps to develop a long-term plan for its future fiscal health. But talk of a fare hike is premature. The City is trying to reduce congestion and encourage greater use of mass transit. Any fare increase should be the last piece of a comprehensive plan, not the first.”

    Napoli noted that, as many have observed said lately, the MTA doesn’t need the fare hike to run a balanced budget in 2008; the agency itself forecasts a net balance of $323 million.

    MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin issued his own press release (not yet available at the MTA’s own press site):

    We are grateful that Comptroller DiNapoli has acknowledged both the M.T.A.’s record ridership and the $6 billion in projected deficits we face over the next four years. These two factors dictate the fiscally responsible path we have proposed, which calls for internal belt tightening and contributions from all of our funding partners to address these deficits before they threaten service. The plan introduces stability and predictability to the fare structure by calling for biannual cost-of-living increases instead of much larger increases in crisis situations. The proposed financial plan accepts the M.T.A. responsibility to provide improved service to a rapidly growing city and region and acts immediately to put the agency on sound financial footing. Deferring the proposed 2008 fare and toll increase will only lead to more drastic increases and unacceptable service cuts in 2009.

    In my view, the MTA’s release dances around the fact that both Comptroller’s have now told the MTA to ask for more money from the City and State. While Soffin cannot come out and lay the blame at the feet of politicians who have long stifled the MTA and have deprived the agency of its rightful funds, I hope the MTA is at least pursuing this course as well. It’s better to beg hat-in-hand in Albany than it is to stick the straphangers with another fare hike.

    The full Comptroller report can be access here as a PDF or here as an audio file. Key bullet points after the jump:

    (more…)