Second Ave. Sagas

Category: MTA Economics

  • Comptroller: MTA short over $9 billion for capital plan

    During the build-up to the fare hike, a common refrain emerged from the mouths of New York’s elected legislatures. “Ask us for money, and we’ll give it to you,” these representatives said to MTA CEO and Executive Director Elliot Sander over and over again. They practically begged for the chance to dole out funds to the financially-strapped transportation agency.

    Now, based on a newly-released Comptroller’s report, the legislature will have a chance to make good on their promise to the tune of at least $9 billion over the next five years. Whether or not they can deliver the funds will impact the MTA and the region for years to come.

    In his report (available here as a PDF, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli crunches the numbers in the MTA’s proposed capital plan for 2008-2013(PDF) and determines that the MTA needs at least $9.3 billion more to fully fund the plan. That number could climb to $13.8 billion if congestion pricing fails.

    DiNapoli’s report paints something of a bleak picture regarding the MTA’s financial future. Under the current iteration of the next five-year capital campaign, the agency will be saddled with rising debt service costs that could end up crippling the agency. New York City cannot afford a repeat of the 1970s when it comes to its public transportation network.

    “The MTA is absolutely vital to the region’s economy,” DiNapoli said. “The system must be kept in good repair and crucial expansion projects must be completed as planned and on time. But the MTA can’t close the funding gap without the help of the State and the City. And the MTA should not rely too heavily on debt. Debt service is already placing increasing pressure on the MTA’s operating budget.”

    According to DiNapoli’s report — which I’ll be examining further next week — the MTA has proposed a capital plan that, annually, is 36.6 percent larger than the current five-year program. But the plan is not without a trade off. As DiNapoli writes, “every $1 billion in MTA capital spending generates 8700 jobs, $454 million in total wages, and $1.5 billion in economic activity in the metropolitan region.” Might MTA construction actually pay for itself? Shouldn’t the MTA deserve some more state money based upon these figures? It seems so.

    In the end, though, for DiNapoli, it all boils down to debt payments. Once the MTA covers the portion of the plan that they can through potential federal contributions due to congestion pricing, farebox revenue and bond issues, they will be left with large debt service payments that could cripple the agency in ten or fifteen years. “Debt service on bonds issued in support of approved capital programs will peak at $2.1 billion annually beginning in 2013 — 38 percent higher than the current level — and will reach $2.5 billion by 2017 based on the proposed capital program,” he wrote. “Debt service will place increasing pressure on the MTA’s operating budget and will consume 43 percent of fare and toll revenue by 2017, compared with 28 percent today.”

    So here then is the chance for the legislature to step in. The MTA is at least $9.3 billion and will be facing burdensome debt service payments in the near future. After years of neglect, the state and city could rescue the MTA from a fiscal crisis. It’s time to make good on those pleas we’ve been hearing for the last few months. Give the MTA the money.

  • MTA has hundreds of millions of reasons to support congestion pricing plan

    congestionpricing.jpg

    The new congestion pricing plan. It’s certainly a good start. (Streetsblog posted this graphic on Thursday.)

    Economic relief is on the horizon for the MTA’s beleaguered capital construction plans. After a week of bad news concerning rising construction costs and project delays, state commission on Mayor Bloomberg’s controversial congestion pricing plan approved a version of the plan that could send as much as $491 million a year straight to the MTA.

    William Neuman, writing on The Times’ Cityroom blog, has more:

    A plan to thin Manhattan’s perpetual throngs of traffic by charging fees to drivers and increasing prices for on-street parking was approved by a 13-2 vote on Thursday afternoon by a state commission appointed to review different proposals. The plan to decrease traffic in much of Manhattan, first proposed in a slightly different form by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg last April, would charge drivers $8 to go below 60th Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    The commission, the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, also recommended imposing a $1 surcharge for taxi trips starting or ending in the area and increased parking rates below 60th Street. The plan produced by the commission was generally the same as the mayor’s original plan with a few differences. The mayor wanted the pricing zone to begin at 86th street, instead of 60th, and the original plan had fees for trips within the zone as well as for cars entering the area.

    The plan also calls for the money raised through fees — estimated at $491 million annually — to be dedicated to improvements in mass transit. The commission also recommended that the city make adjustments to ease the impact that expected increases in parking congestion that could occur as commuters abandon their cars at the fringes of the congestion area. Commissioners also recommended that state legislators consider making changes to tax laws to assist low-income drivers who could be disproportionately affected by congestion pricing.

    For more of the details of the new plan, check out this post on Streetsblog or read through the PDF report available here.

    Meanwhile, this is of course fantastic news for the MTA, and it couldn’t come at a better time. But before we break out the champagne — or the granite and porcelain — let’s remember that this plan has a long way to go before it becomes law. The plan must now head to the City Council for approval, and council members have been loathe to support something that so many of us want. Ominously, one of the two members on the panel to vote against the plan is a representatives from the city, and as Streetsblog has noted, council members seem to be willfully ignoring their constituents.

    But all hope is not lost. Herman D. Farrell Jr., a Democrat from Manhattan, is not flat-out against the plan. “I expect to get more information before I can make an honest vote,” he said to Neuman.

    For the plan, a few details need to fall into place. First, the money — projected at a hair under $500 million — must go to the MTA. The new report is adamant in this regard. “All net revenues generated by the congestion pricing fee and the taxi surcharge should be deposited into a dedicated MTA account similar to the agency’s dedicated real estate tax accounts. These funds should only be used for capital investments for system improvement, expansion, and state of good repair projects, excluding normal replacement,” it says.

    Second, the city has to institute residential parking permit plans and higher on-street parking rates. If people who would otherwise get charged the congestion fee end up driving to the edge of the fee zone and parking on the streets, neighborhoods will be overrun with cars, and the city won’t be taking in money. Off the top of my head, I would recommend at least $4 an hour for on-street parking and a tough residential parking permit program. A cost that high would deter drivers.

    I’m guardedly optimistic about this plan’s chances. Every politician in New York knows what the MTA could do win $491 million a year, and they all know the MTA needs that money. While this plan is a far cry from Ted Kheel’s fantastic plan, it’s a great start. Now, let’s just hope the City Council agrees. Maybe this bad week for the MTA has a silver lining after all.

  • Kheel: The subways could be free, but…

    Theodore Kheel, the 93-year-old public advocate with a lot of money and a hate of traffic, unveiled his much-anticipated transit fare-congestion pricing report on Thursday. The report — entitled Balancing: Free Transit and Congestion Pricing in New York City — is the culmination of an 11-month, $100,000 effort funded by Kheel.

    The plan itself is audacious and thorough. Theoretically, it would work perfectly, and I love it for its promise and all that it could represent for the future of the MTA. Too bad it will never happen.

    First, the details. You can read the whole thing right here. It’s a 55-page PDF file, but it reads fast.

    Kheel’s plan proposes a massive increase in the congestion fee. He wants to charge cars $16 and trucks $32 at all times to enter Manhattan south of 60th St. But that’s not all; the proposal also calls for medallion cab fares to increase by 25 percent and for curbside parking in the Manhattan Central Business district and outside of the zone to go up to as much as $4. This way, there is no incentive for people to drive to the edge of the congestion zone and park for below-market rates.

    Now, here’s the brilliant trade-off. All of this money will go toward public transit. And not only just toward public transit but for making public transit 100 percent free. As Kheel’s analysis shows, by implementing his plan, traffic would decrease by 25 percent in the central business district and nine percent outside of it, and public transit would receive a dedicated source of funding that far exceeds what they currently draw in through the fare box and what they plan to draw in through the relatively modest fare hike. Based on the models, the subways would draw in an additional $700 million a year that could go toward improving the system.

    From a productivity perspective, Kheel’s plan is rife with results. Besides the decrease in traffic, mobility in the city would go up. People who choose to venture into the congestion zone will find their trips easier; people outside of the zone will notice the decreased traffic as well. The city on the hole should save $4 billion in productivity lost to traffic and approximately 100 million vehicle hours. Fewer cars would allow the city to dedicate more space to wider sidewalks, dedicated bike lanes, and a well-implemented bus rapid transit plan — which is a key part to the Kheel plan as many former drivers would turn to BRT lines in the non-subway accessible parts of the Outer Boroughs.

    Now, the obvious answers as far as we’re concerned involve potentially crowded and insecure subways. Won’t free transit mean more vagrants and vandals in the trains? Won’t it also mean a massive increase in the volume of people riding the subway? To these questions, Kheel responds worry not.

    First, Kheel notes that a lot of the traffic in the city is brought on by off-peak users who don’t want to turn to a slower subway system. The congestion pricing should add an estimated 28,000 commuters to the rush hour trains and more to off-peak, underutilized (in that they aren’t packed to the gills) trains. Meanwhile, Kheel figures that a good number of people will switch to the speedier commuter rails and those folks living close to the CBD will simply bike instead of taking the train. In fact, he estimates that the subways would see an initial net loss of 5000 commuters. Considering that nearly 8 million people a day ride the trains, those numbers are insignificant.

    As for the safety of it, Kheel’s plan has it more that covered. Transit workers currently tasked with fare-related jobs can turn their attention to safety, for one. Furthermore, with $700 million in extra revenue, the MTA can finally get to outfitting the cars and stations with security devices, and the MTA and NYPD can hire more officers to patrol the trains.

    To make matters better, Kheel’s plan scales as well. Charge $16 but don’t implement it 24/7, and transit fares could decrease by 80 percent. Charge $12 24/7, and the fares could decrease by 75 percent. These other plans however cut into the traffic-alleviation part of it. Kheel’s researches include a very detailed chart with a few alternatives on page 13 of the report.

    So with this topline summary in mind — and I really do urge you to read the report — let’s go back to the beginning. Once a skeptic, I love this plan, but it will never happen for the simple reason that it would be political suicide for any elected official to support a $16, 24/7 congestion fee plan even if it makes economic and environmental sense for the city. And forget the plans to raise curbside parking to $4 an hour.

    People in New York City are, stupidly, married to their cars. They demand below-market, on-street parking. They demand access to roads at the expense of wide sidewalks and bike lanes. They demand access to roads at the expense of common-sense bus rapid transit lanes. They demand the right to drive as though it were protected by the Constitution, and this is simply a misguided and harmful attitude.

    For New York City to remain a thriving, viable city long into the 21st Century, we have to leave behind 20th Century conceptions of travel and personal space. As much as I hate to preach about this, automobiles in vast urban areas are a dying breed. We can’t widen the city roads to accommodate the cars, and anyway, widening roads simply leads to more traffic. Our nation refuses to adopt clean-air technology for cars in a timely fashion so in order to combat urban smog, politicians are turning to a highly-contentious congestion fee.

    Opponents, meanwhile, turn this congestion fee fight into a populist battle. We can’t let the politicians curtail our right to drive, they say, pointing out how it affects the middle and lower classes more than the upper classes. Well, guess what? The middle and lower classes don’t own cars and would be much better served with a free transit system that enjoys a $700 million annual operating surplus.

    But sadly, the ideal society where a Kheel plan could pass because it would negatively impact the people who could afford and positively impact the people who need it doesn’t exist. Ted Kheel should be applauded for his vision, and his plan deserves as much attention as anything under consideration now. It’s groundbreaking; it’s visionary; it would work; and it just won’t happen.

  • A transit free-for-all

    Ted Kheel, the 93-year-old public advocate, has unveiled the $100,000 plan he funded to advocate for free transit. Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now to really drill down on the 55-page report, but it’s a good plan. I was originally skeptical, but now I think it can work. The short of it: Kheel was a 24/7 $16-per-car, $32-per-truck congestion fee that is earmarked for transit only. More later. [The Free Transit Report (PDF)]

  • Transportation Alliance calls for dedicated MTA funding source

    I’ve been getting a little wonky around these parts lately. After the fare hike to-do last month, transit news has slowed down a bit, and I promise that a few lighthearted posts are in the chute. For now, keep on indulging me, and good times — as well as a fare hike — are right around the corner.

    Today, we had back into the realm of policy. The Empire State Transportation Alliance — you’ll remember them from the Public Forum they led in November with the MTA on the fare hikes — is a supergroup of transportation experts, transportation industry groups and public advocates. When they speak, politicians should listen, and right now, ESTA is speaking out loud and clear: The MTA should get all the money it needs, and it should get it now. That is a very bold statement from a very influential group.

    Of course, the odd thing here is that not too many people were listening. Only Pete Donohue from the Daily News had this story on Wednesday:

    if you think the subways are crowded, imagine them two decades from now, when the city projects there will be a million more residents. “Now more than ever we need to fund transit,” said Chris Ward, co-chairman of the Empire State Transportation Alliance. “The billions of dollars that the MTA needs to build the system we all want, and the city needs – requires – action now.”

    The alliance, a coalition of civic, transportation advocacy and construction groups that helped pass the 2005 transportation bond act, is now planning a $500,000 publicity campaign to pressure elected officials to provide a steady and secure new stream of revenue for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The ads will appear in the mass transit system next month.

    ESTA makes a point that, no more how repetitive we begin to sound, is never a bad one. In twenty years, the MTA will be facing an 125-year-old system that is barely hanging on financially. This is no way to run a transportation system.

    For a dose of reality, New York’s political leaders should look to Chicago. Lawmakers, pressured by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, had to pass a contentious, 11th-hour tax bill to ensure the future of the Chicago Transit Authority. Our leaders should never allow the MTA’s finances to fall that far into ruin.

    As ESTA gears up for this important public awareness campaign, they’re digging in for a battle. People like small tax increases even less than they like inflation-based transit fare hikes. But it’s now or never; the MTA needs to expand now to meet the demands of New York in 2028. We need the Second Ave. Subway; we need more service, newer cars and renovated stations. And the MTA needs that money.

  • Of pigeons, uniforms and money

    I hope this pigeon paid its $2-fare to board this train. (Photo by flickr user mortimer777)

    It’s all about the money these days with the MTA. In light of what many perceive to be an unfair fare hike, critics and newspapers alike are concentrating more and more on the little things that impact the MTA economically.

    Today, we have two stories that everyone will use to slam the MTA. Let’s start with pigeon poop. New York City Transit recently lost a lawsuit filed by a man who tripped and fell in a pile of pigeon droppings. He emerged seriously injured and, nearly 10 years after the original 1998 accident, won over $6 million from New York City Transit.

    In the case, Shelton Stewart, the injured party, claimed that NYCT employees knew about the dangerous pile of droppings but did nothing to clean it up. This negligence has cost NYCT as much as $6 million, but the agency plans to appeal. Simcha Felder’s plan to eliminate pigeons looks all the more appealing.

    Right now, other than following through with an appeal, there’s not much the MTA can do. On more than one occasion, local politicians have criticized the Authority for not keeping their stations pigeon-free, and now the problem has come home to roost. Live and learn is the lesson here. Maybe now, outdoor stations will get the cleaning attention they deserver.

    The second story gives a little more to the critics. The MTA is spending $2.5 million on new uniform for station agents. Pete Donohue from The Daily News reports:

    Over the past several months, 3,500 workers in the subway stations department have been trading in their traditional work outfits – blue shirts, blue pants – for a more formal look: white shirts and gray trousers, or skirts for the ladies working behind the glass.

    The men get gray and black ties; female workers ascots. The new wardrobe also includes a burgundy vest, burgundy sweater and burgundy coat.

    NYC Transit spokeswoman Deirdre Parker said the per-worker cost was approximately $738, and the total cost $2,583,245.

    The workers are less-than-impressed with the new digs because the white shirts get dirty in the subways. But the Daily News seems more concerned with the cost outlays for the new uniforms. In reality, that $2.5 million isn’t much in the grand scheme of the MTA, and despite the big debate on Subchat, as a few commenters noted, the cost per person isn’t that unreasonable for a week’s worth of work clothing.

    As it will be for some time, it’s all about the MTA’s money. Who knows how long this microscopic look at the MTA’s finances will last, but it sure gets tiresome early.

  • Did the Mayor torpedo instant service upgrades?

    When the MTA announced yesterday the service upgrades to go along with the fare hike, I applauded the agency for its fiscal restraint. The upgrades, you see, are being delayed until June or later so that the MTA can make sure its tenuous finances are in order.

    But today, news emerged that shed some light on these delays, and word is that Mayor Bloomberg’s support for the fare hike was contingent upon the MTA’s delaying these service upgrades. His motives however may not be 100 percent pure. Is he really that concerned with the MTA’s financial health or does he have ulterior motives?

    Metro’s Patrick Arden has more:

    While the debate over the MTA’s finances has focused on wringing money from Albany, this push-back came from City Hall, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided to support the fare hike. In a statement, Bloomberg made clear he had asked “that next year’s service increase program will not be implemented until the first quarter’s tax and other revenues are reviewed.”

    The mayor’s motivation may ultimately be political, as the MTA’s new $28 billion capital program gets submitted to the state Legislature just before it votes on congestion pricing. The mayor’s traffic fee would fund the MTA’s capital needs.

    Now, I’m not quite sure where Arden is going with this line of thinking. On the one hand, it would behoove Bloomberg politically to support service upgrades. Every New York City politician supports more frequent subway service because, hey, that’s what voters like. And Bloomberg does seem genuinely concerned about the MTA’s finances.

    But on the other hand — well, on the other hand, I’m drawing a blank. Arden notes that this could be a political gambit to pressure the state into approving the congestion pricing plan. But how? The congestion pricing money would go toward capital programs for the MTA and not the added train and bus service.

    I could picture Bloomberg telling the legislature that, unless they approve more money for the MTA and the congestion pricing plan, the MTA will have to cut service and won’t be able to institute these service additions. Such an outcome would not endear state representatives to their constituents. But based upon the news reports about these service upgrades, it sounds like they aren’t related to the congestion pricing income as much as they are to the health of the MTA between now and May.

    Bloomberg could be playing out a dangerous political gambit here, and I would hate to see these much-needed additions to subway service disappear if our mayor were to end up on the losing side of the gamble.

  • Politicians, MTA square off over emergency workers

    After the London Underground bombings in 2005, the MTA ramped up its emergency preparedness. One of their measures included putting around 100 workers in high-volume stations who were in charge solely of emergency procedures should a calamity befall the subway system.

    Two years later, these workers have yet to be put to use, and with other emergency preparedness in place, the MTA wants to eliminate these 100 positions as part of their internal belt-tightening efforts. New York’s politicians, of course, will have nothing of it. We can’t cut emergency workers in a post-9/11 world, now can we? Well, I think we can.

    Before we get into that, though, Pete Donohue from The Daily News has more on this story.

    The posts at 20 key hubs are no longer needed because NYC Transit – the MTA’s bus and subway division – has improved subway station exits throughout the system, managers claim. “Panic bars” have been installed on locked swinging-door gates that lead to sidewalk stairwells.

    Riders can unlock the gates themselves and no longer need token booth clerks to open them up, NYC Transit spokesman Charles Seaton said. The upgrades “add a significant amount of exiting capacity to the system,” he added.

    In response, Peter Villone, chairman of the city council’s Public Safety Committee, claimed that the MTA is “jeopardizing the lives of their riders” because, hey, people might be slowed down by those HEET turnstiles which, Mr. Villone, were designed to facilitate rapid egress from subway stations. Common sense has a field day with the city council sometimes.

    Now I know many people are wary about eliminating emergency response positions, and this cut would only save the MTA a few million dollars whereas better accountability with regards to the Student MetroCard program could save the MTA $71.5 million. But I think it’s a fine program to cut.

    Do we really need 100 extra workers whose only responsibility is to be prepared for an emergency? No. Rather, the MTA should make sure that all of its employees are well versed in emergency response protocols.

    It’s not hard to figure out which of the 20 key hubs are staffed. I’m sure Times Square, Penn Station and all of the other insanely crowded stops are on the list. These stations all have plenty of other MTA personnel working there, and these workers should be well trained in case of an emergency. Despite Villone’s calls, we the riders would be just fine in case of an emergency if we were taking instruction from MTA personnel already on the payroll rather than 100 unnecessary workers.

  • MTA debate moving from fare hikes to fiscal focus

    During the CNN/YouTube Republican debates on Wednesday night, one YouTube user in Florida asked the candidates about their plans to invest in the nation’s aging infrastructure. Our illustrious former mayor drew the short straw, and in his answer, he claimed that he made sure the city invested heavily in its infrastructure. He claimed that he made sure the city’s vital parts were adequately funded and in good repair.

    Mr. Giuliani, our subway systems beg to differ.

    I was watching this debate with some friends of mine and sitting next to me were the documents I used yesterday in my post on the Capital future of the MTA. Those documents happen to have charts detailing the levels of state and city investment in the MTA, and these numbers — and our past reality — simply contradict Giuliani’s claims. During his terms as mayor of the City of New York, he took money away from the MTA that should have been going to fund our Transportation Authority. That’s not have I would define an investment in infrastructure.

    But now, it seems like the fiscal tide is turning. As MTA CEO and Executive Director Lee Sander pushes his message and opens up the MTA’s books, more and more influential subway advocates and politicians are starting to support the idea that the state and city owe more money to the Transportation Authority.

    We start with a piece in The Daily News by the Straphangers’ attorney Gene Russianoff and and Democratic State Senator Eric Schneiderman. The two give a more detailed economic breakdown of the way New York State and New York City withdrew their MTA funding obligations during the Pataki/Giuliani years. As these two subway experts paint a picture of impending financial ruin, they close with an optimistic statement on the future:

    Fortunately, there now seems to be a new level of energy behind the idea of going beyond a short term fix to address these deeper problems. Members of the state Senate and Assembly are urging the MTA to seek state aid rather than raise fares. Newspaper editorial boards have been a strong part of the push as well. And Spitzer and the MTA have found $220 million in new funds to freeze the base bus and subway fare at $2.

    That is a first step. Spitzer has a lot on his plate, but ending Albany’s systemic abuse of our 7.5 million straphangers should be at or near the top of the pile. He must work with the Legislature and the MTA board, both to avoid a fare hike in 2008 and to set a new agenda for our state’s mass transit program – an agenda that breaks with the unsustainable and inexcusable policies of the last 12 years.

    Except for one philosophical point concerning the fare hike, I completely agree with Russianoff and Schneiderman. The MTA needs the money. But how much do they need?

    Well, Crain’s New York Business Journal reports today that the MTA will ask for $23 to $28 billion for the next five-year Capital program. While this is a higher figure than the MTA originally reported earlier this year, it is in line with what officials were discussing at the Public Engagement Workshop. The budget projections have increased due to a slowing down of the U.S. economy and rising construction costs.

    This request however is secondary and bound to earn state approval. The real substance of what the MTA needs comes in the additional $600 million annually that MTA officials say the state should give them. This is the money they need to avoid a fare hike and keep up operations and debt service payments.

    Yet, Sander is not optimistic. He too has noted that the state, strapped for cash, may have a tough time coming up with more money. “Our concern, quite frankly, is that there is a limit in terms of Albany being able to respond,” Sander said. “Could you just give us your thoughts about how Albany can find the money?”

    While Schneiderman claims that the state legislature is willing to close numerous tax loopholes, I bet the Republicans in the Senate won’t be too thrilled to follow through on that promise. So it all comes back to the fare hike.

    Unlike Schneiderman and Russianoff, I don’t think the MTA is in a position to wait on the state to deliver the goods because Governor Spitzer and the individual Senators are just not in a position to make those promises on their own. People are starting to notice that the new fare plan put forward by Spitzer and Sander last week will still be a substantial fare hike, and that’s because the MTA needs those funds.

    We can’t afford to watch our subways fall into a state of disrepair, and unless the legislature wants to hold an emergency funding session for the MTA, six or eight months is a substantial amount of time for the MTA to fall further into debt. I would be happy to see the fare hike dropped but not until a firm financial plan that puts the MTA back on the road to fiscal security is in place. Right now, I just don’t see that happening.

    Photo of the old tokens and a Metrocard by flickr user MacRonin47.

  • MTA fuel contracts lead to grandstanding

    Did the MTA screw up a fuel contract and thus cost themselves a few million dollars? That’s the question on the minds of The Daily News and Metro today.

    Let’s start with The Daily News. As part of their editorial-news Halt the Hike coverage, The News notes that the MTA clearly sacrificed a savings opportunity of millions of dollars when they neglected to purchase fuel in July at lower prices than today’s for use next year and the year after. Pete Donohue:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board set aside $150 million in July to buy fuel to be used next year and in 2009.

    Staffers didn’t realize until September that a key contract involving fuel delivery was expiring. By then, the lower-price deal couldn’t be locked in because a new contract would have to be put out for bid, a long process, MTA Chief Financial Officer Gary Dellaverson told board members at a committee meeting yesterday.

    Prices have “skyrocketed” since July, Dellaverson said, and the MTA has all but given up on the idea.

    In an article that rings a little bit like quote-mining, MTA Board Member Andrew Saul, who is firmly against the fare hikes despite missing every fare hike meeting, and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky were harshly critical of the Authority.

    Brodsky, using the ever-popular royal we, was particular offended by the MTA’s blunder. “It looks like MTA lost millions of dollars in savings by not being light enough on their feet,” Brodsky said. “That money could have been used to save the fare, and we’ll be asking the MTA to explain how this happened.”

    Saul meanwhile wasn’t sure how much of a mistake the MTA. “That was a huge mistake, though, right?” Saul said. “We would have had the July price, which was God knows how much cheaper than it is now.”

    Now, based on these reactions, you would think we were talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that the MTA is flushing down the proverbial toilet. In reality, the difference in fuel costs, according to The Daily News, is $12 million. It’s not chump change, but in the grand scheme of the fare hike and the potential $6-billion deficit, that $12 million won’t exactly break the bank.

    But wait, there’s more. Patrick Arden at Metro, in a poorly-edited article, notes that it probably isn’t too late to buy the fuel now. At that time, Saul’s fellow MTA board members expressed skepticism over the deal, and today, Wall Street analyst Jim Cramer feels fuel prices are still lower than they will be over the next months.

    When all is said and done, it sounds like Saul’s and Brodsky’s finger-pointing will lead back to hesitant board members unwilling to hedge MTA money on fuel futures in a time of economic instability. That’s a fairly conservative investment approach but one that makes sense. Too bad we’re stuck once again with grandstanding politicians trying to make mountains out of mole hills.