Second Ave. Sagas

Category: MTA Politics

  • Mr. Walder goes to Albany

    When Jay Walder spoke to reporters following the December 2010 MTA Board meeting, he discussed the MTA’s looming capital problem. The authority’s five-year construction plan that works to both maintain and expand the existing system has been funded only through the end of 2011, and it still suffers from a $10 billion gap. Without action from Albany well before the end of the year, the MTA will have a crisis on its hands.

    “We would need, in going forward with any contracts, to ensure that we have any money not just to start a contract but to complete a contract,” he said. “I do not believe we have the capacity to bond out further off of our existing revenue sources.”

    Walder added that by the latter part of the year, the authority will need funding commitments from the state. If not, as Michael Horodniceanu, president of MTA Capital Construction reiterated last week, the authority will have to begin slowing down its projects. They won’t cease work entirely, but things will not move ahead on schedule.

    Yesterday, the MTA CEO and Chairman went to Albany for what seems like his monthly grilling session. Apparently, our state senators don’t get tired of repeating themselves because the hearing quickly devolved into familiar territory. Suburban representatives went after the payroll tax that their own legislative body approved while city reps rightly expressed concern over the future of the MTA’s capital funding problems.

    As the Wall Street Journal reported, Sen. Marty Golden, a new representative on the state’s capital oversight board, asked Walder if the MTA had begun to talk with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s team. While I’ve given Golden a tough time in the past for his unwillingness to support revenue-generating measures, he understand the importance of the capital project and recognizes that it will both keep our subways running and lead to jobs for city construction workers.

    Walder said he has broached the topic with Cuomo’s team, but funding solutions are not yet on the horizon. “I have not had conversations as to avenues of funding for the capital program,” he said. The ever-present panacea of congestion pricing or East River bridge tolls would generate enough revenue to bond out the capital plan. Will the state follow through?

    As the MTA head though spoke about the funding challenges on the operating side as well, he again vowed to keep service levels and fares constant. “We will not look to service cuts and we will not look to fare increases. We will look, as we have been doing, for ways that we can continue to reduce our cost structure,” he said. “Well we’ve said and I’ll continue to say is that we’re working on a plan right now to be able to deal with that.”

    But suburban politicians again grilled him on the payroll tax as though it were a creature of Walder’s creation. In fact, the MTA CEO wasn’t in the country when the state legislature approved the controversial plan. But this is a point oft repeated that Albany doesn’t seem to understand. Three weeks after the Senate performed a similar farce, the Assembly went at it. “We are paying greater freight in the suburbs for the services that are basically New York City services,” Assembly rep Nancy Calhoun said.

    The Rockland County representative wasn’t the only one raising a stink. “It’s killing businesses and it’s making Long Island harder and harder to afford to live there,” Al Graf, an assembly rep from Long Island, said.

    Walder though laid out the case for the payroll tax. It isn’t that New Yorkers enjoy the tax; we don’t. But the MTA has been left by Albany with no choice. The Senate and Assembly could have pushed for a more equitable congestion pricing plan, but they opted to close a budget hole that isn’t going away with something far more controversial. “I do not believe that you can take that resource out of the MTA without having a devastating impact upon the region and regional economy,” Walder stressed.

    The solution is almost too simple: In exchange for lowering or even eliminating the tax in suburban counties, the city should implement some form of tolling across the East River and into Manhattan’s so-called Central Business District. That money could be used to offset the gap in the operations budget created by a reduced tax revenue.

    Of course, then we arrive at the problem of congestion pricing. The MTA needs money for both the capital budget and its operations ledger. The same dollars can’t go to both. Which side will give out first?

  • Report: Cuomo to cut state transit funding

    Governor Andrew Cuomo hasn’t ridden the subway since “last year, and now he’s planning on removing some state funds for the MTA when he unveils his budget tomorrow. According to a report in The Daily News, Cuomo will attempt to limit the cuts to “an amount the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will be expected to absorb while maintaining both the current MetroCard prices and level of service.” Color me skeptical.

    Pete Donohue has the bad news:

    Gov. Cuomo soon will propose a reduction in MTA funding – but he doesn’t want to trigger an increase in what riders pay to ride the subway, buses and commuter trains, a source close to the administration said. The figure will be limited to an amount the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will be expected to absorb while maintaining both the current MetroCard prices and level of service, the source said…

    MTA executives cut $500 million in spending last year. About 3,500 positions were eliminated, many through painful layoffs. But the Metropolitan Transportation Authority remains in a constant state of fiscal crisis. Its 2011 budget plan has a $75 million reserve – lunch money for an authority operating the largest subway system in North America and the country’s two largest commuter railroads.

    Whatever its shortcomings, the MTA’s money problems aren’t the result of corrupt transit executives, bungling bureaucrats or greedy workers, as some critics contend. There never was an illegal “two sets of books,” a myth that emerged after an ethically challenged state controller released a scathing report on MTA finances. The real shell game takes place in Albany. Much of the MTA’s funding comes from a series of taxes the state Legislature enacted over time specifically to help pay the cost of transporting millions of people to their jobs every day – a public service one has a right to expect is both safe and affordable. The state collects the dough – but doesn’t always pass along the full amount to the MTA. It quietly skims off the top and uses it for other purposes.

    In my opinion, Donohue is glossing over some key facts. He’s right to shoot down the claims of two sets of book; that’s one of the more infuriating myths that just won’t die. But a bloated bureaucracy, an inflexible union and some poor contracting practices that may or may not resemble corruption are certainly to blame, in part, for the MTA’s structural and economic problems. The MTA is not a blameless victim here.

    That said, Donohue hits on a few key points here. The MTA has made a concerted effort to save money over the past 12 months, but that doesn’t mean the authority can absorb another funding raid. Had Albany not removed $143 million from the MTA’s budget last year, the service cuts could have been averted. Another cut will require the MTA to scale back on either services — such as station cleaners or in-system eyeballs — or transportation service, and neither of those choices is a desired outcome. If Gov. Cuomo truly believes he can cut the MTA budget without impacting service levels or the fare structure, he may be in for one unpleasant surprise.

    Meanwhile, the very idea of dedicated funding is under attack. When the state legislature approves a tax with revenues dedicated for transit, that shouldn’t be an option appropriation. Those monies should never come under attack from politicians who aren’t responsible in their other spending decisions. Money for collected for transit should always be redistributed to transit.

    Advocates are worried about the impact cuts will have on the MTA’s bottom line because those cuts will be passed onto the riders. How much more can New Yorkers take before holding Albany responsible for this mess?

  • Cuomo set to retain Walder as MTA’s top dog

    Update (4:35 p.m.): Here’s a rare bit of good news out of Albany concerning the MTA’s future: Gov. Andrew Cuomo has decided to keep Jay Wader as head of the MTA and Christopher Ward as Executive Director of the Port Authority, Erik Engquist of Crain’s New York reported this morning. According to the story, Walder has already been informed of the decision, and Cuomo, who “credits Mr. Walder with finding efficiencies worth hundreds of millions of dollars” at the MTA, appears pleased with Walder’s tenure at the MTA. Engquist’s sources say that Walder’s Golden Parachute provisions had nothing to do with Cuomo’s decision.

    As Crain’s notes, “the decisions to keep the Port and MTA chiefs are not likely to draw many objections, except from the Transport Workers Union, which has attempted to demonize Mr. Walder in an effort to gain leverage in contract negotiations.” I’d say that’s an accurate assessment. The TWU fears an MTA head with the full support of a governor who has discussed going after union contracts while transit advocates have praised Walder for his willingness to cut the MTA’s fat while moving the subway system and its technology into the 21st Century. All in all, it’s a good move to keep Walder on, and the MTA will be able to enjoy stability at the top for the next half a decade.

    Gene Russianoff, head of the Straphangers Campaign, voiced his support for the move this afternoon. “Governor Andrew Cuomo did the right thing keeping Jay Walder – a transit professional – MTA Chairman and CEO,” he said in a statement. “Hopefully, this positive signal will be followed by positive actions, including Governor Cuomo’s not raiding dedicated transit funds, as well as coming up with the billions needed to repair our aging transit system.”

  • Schumer: We must continue to build

    It’s safe to say that Chuck Schumer and Chris Christie aren’t friends. As I explored, New York’s senior senator had some choice words for the New Jersey governor at a Crain’s Breakfast yesterday. Amidst a speech about the need to invest in the region’s infrastructure, the senator slammed Christie for canceling the ARC Tunnel and setting back the region’s progress. It is, by now, a familiar refrain.

    But while Schumer’s fight with his cross-Hudson, cross-aisle rival made headlines, the rest of his speech is worthy of attention to. His summed up his focus thusly: “It has been one of the particular geniuses of New York going back centuries that we have always recognized the importance of investing in infrastructure, even when others did not.”

    Today, it might seem a bit unwieldy to praise our infrastructure efforts. New York’s subway system and road network are not in the best of shape, and the advancements we’re making seem, like the Second Ave. Subway, costly or, like the 7 Line extension, misguided at best. Still, Schumer praised even these small signs of forward movement. “On the Upper East Side, the Second Avenue subway is finally becoming a reality,” he said. “Although progress remains slower than we would like, the fact that we are in the ground and actually moving ahead after eighty years of discussion and abortive starts is a great achievement…Ultimately, when all four phases of the Second Avenue Subway are completed, we will be improving the commute of over half a million riders every day.”

    During the speech, Schumer spoke at length about the why of it all. “Without increased capacity, Manhattan, and the surrounding areas that depend on it, would stop growing. Our competitive advantage would become a disadvantage if something was not done,” he said while touting the benefits of the East Side Access plan.

    After slamming Christie’s decision as the moment when “the region stopped looking toward the future,” Schumer let loose his litany of desired improvements. He wants New York to embrace high-speed rail; he wants a one-seat ride to Laguardia; he wants to make sure our region’s over-taxed airports can meet the demands of travel in 2011. “For New York to continue to thrive in the 21st century, we must continue to make major investments in its transportation system,” he said. “These are the projects which will fuel the region’s economic growth for the coming decades.”

    With a rhetorical flourish, he ended where one would expect him to end. “In today’s competitive global economy,” he said, “to stand still is to fall further and further behind. We cannot let that happen.”

    It all sounds good. Schumer has always had a knack for saying the right things, but his actions over the years have spoken louder than words. He might talk about investing in infrastructure, and he might deliver federal grants now and then. He was certainly instrumental in getting the Second Ave. Subway off the drawing board and into the ground, but his leadership on most transit issues has been mostly non-existent/

    What Schumer hasn’t done for New York and its infrastructure is substantial. He didn’t lead an effort to secure emergency federal funds to help transit authorities ease operating deficits and avoid criplping fare hikes and service cuts. He hasn’t played a role in ensuring that the MTA is adequately funded, that a congestion pricing funding scheme passed through Albany or that the MTA’s current $10 billion capital budget hole is closed.

    New York City and its subway system won’t sink if Schumer neglects it or continues his laissez-faire approach to transit. Furthermore, many of these issues are far more relevant at the state level than in Congress, but with the largest transit-riding constituency in the country. Schumer should be doing more. This year, facing capital needs and a hazy operations outlook, the MTA needs all the help it can get, and New York’s powerful senator should be able to deliver.

  • Does the MTA have a liability problem?

    The 1991 derailment north of Union Square led to justify lawsuits but not all accidents are as cut-and-dry as that one.

    Every now and then, accidents involving the MTA make their ways into the news. Last week, we heard the horrific tale of a man crushed by the platform extenders at Union Square, and over the weekend, a disabled man lost control of his wheelchair and ended up in the tracks. Earlier this year, the MTA lost a $7 million judgment in a case in which the jury found a bus driver at fault in an collision with another vehicle. Eventually, the legal bills mount up.

    In his column in the Daily News yesterday, Pete Donohue highlights the MTA’s liability gap. He found that, in many cases, the authority is losing to plaintiffs who were at fault. The piece leads with the story of one Dustin Dibble who fell onto the tracks while “drunk as a skunk,” lost his leg to a train car and won a $2.3 million judgment against the MTA. While plaintiff’s attorneys who are willing to take on these cases may carry some of the blame, Donohue highlights how open-ended liability costs the cash-strapped authority. He writes:

    There’s no shortage of culprits behind the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s constant cash crisis, which translates into fare hikes, service cuts and dirtier stations for riders. And somewhere on that list are boneheads who have no one but themselves to blame for being in the path of a subway train – as well as their opportunistic lawyers.

    The state Legislature also deserves mention. The MTA has asked for a law clearly stating the obvious: Someone on the tracks because of their own recklessness shouldn’t be able to sue when a motorman doesn’t manage to stop a 400-ton train in time. The Legislature has failed to act. So, the lawsuits keep coming.

    In one recent case, a 30-year-old man riding a bicycle on a subway platform crashed into a column and careened to the tracks, where he was struck. In another, a vandal filed a lawsuit after getting hit in a tunnel; he was trespassing to spray-paint graffiti. While the MTA wins a majority of such cases, it can take years of motions and appeals, all of which take money and effort better spent elsewhere. When it loses, the payouts are big – millions of dollars because of the severe nature of injuries.

    Donohue sums up the morality behind Dibble’s case. The now-26-year-old deserves “sympathy – but not a seven-figure payday at riders’ expense,” and it sounds as though the state courts agree. The Appellate Division tossed out the $2.3 million award earlier this summer, calling it “utterly irrational.” The law firm of Smiley and Smiley plans to appeal, and the MTA’s legal bills will mount.

    But how big of a problem is it? Earlier this year, the MTA released some statistics concerning its legal cases. In 2009, those injured filed 2720 claims against Transit, and only 216 of those went to trial. The agency won 65 percent of those trials, and since 2005, the agency has a similar percentage of the 870 cases to go to trial. Still, NYC Transit paid out $244.8 million in injury claims from 2005-2009 or close to $50 million annually. The bills mount up.

    Tort law and personal injury law certainly has its place underground, and riders need protection from the MTA’s potential negligence. But at some point, straphangers have to take personal responsibility. While a jury may find a graffiti artists who wandered into the tracks to tag an abandoned tunnel contributorily negligent, the MTA can’t operate efficiently if it expects to find people illegally in its tunnels. The state should indeed grant the authority this protection. After all, more riders would benefit from the cost savings generated by looser liability standards than would suffer the consequences of their careless acts.

  • A solution to New York’s transit-robbing ways

    Reinvent Albany's report urges Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo to protect dedicated transit funds. (Read the PDF here)

    For the last few years, transit advocates have decried the state’s stealin’ ways. Last year, New York legislature approved a budget in early December that took $143 million in MTA money and removed it back to the general fund. Thus, the authority had to implement a sweeping array of service cuts in mid-2010. The same could very well happen again before the end of this year, and Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo seems to have no problem raiding the MTA.

    In an effort to shore up the authority’s fiscal security, transit groups are searching for a solution. In California, a new measure approved by voters acts as a constitutional amendment that bars the state from moving money specific earmarked for one purpose to another. In effect, the West Coast leader in car use has created a transit lockbox well before the idea has gained significant political traction in New York state.

    Now a new group called Reinvent Albany that is aiming to promote a fair, accountable and effective state government has issued a report urging Cuomo to protect dedicated transit funding through an Executive Order. As part of a report containing 11 EOs Cuomo could sign immediately to improve the state’s government, Reinvent Albany, run by John Kaehny for whom I’m doing an MTA budget project, has garnered of seven advocacy groups including the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and Transportation Alternatives to sign for its lockbox order.

    “These orders are tailor made for Governor Cuomo to use to launch his campaign to transform New York government,” said Kaehny. “Governor Cuomo will have enormous unilateral power to make government more open and accountable. The ball is in his court to do that.”

    The order in question proposes in part:

    1. The Executive Branch, including the Division, shall not request, recommend, or order appropriations, across-the-board cuts, or programmatic budgets, or any other action that diverts dedicated funds or dedicated revenue sources from the intended and sole purpose defined in the legislation that originally established them.

    2. The Executive Branch, including the Division, shall propose a budget that transfers dedicated revenues directly to the dedicated funds, authorities or agencies they were enacted to support.

    3. The Division shall not implement or propose across-the-board cuts that have the effect of diverting dedicated revenues from the dedicated funds, authorities or agencies they were enacted to support.

    It would require the creation of “a clear and easily understandable description of how dedicated revenues and funds are raised and spent, highlighting and explaining the diversions of dedicated revenues and funds.” This information would be maintained on the New York State Division of Budget’s website for all to see.

    In essence, such a move would inform voters of the MTA’s financial status and show how the actions and decisions of our elected representatives — the same representatives who bash the MTA over service cuts — lead to those service cuts. Now that the EOs are out there, it’s imperative that Cuomo gives the idea serious thought. He has said very little of any comfort on transit, and while an EO can’t replace legislative action, it can usher in better government and wiser choices. If not, the future of the MTA and transit in New York City may be a tenuous one indeed.

  • Cuomo: Transit money ‘fungible.’ Ravitch: Nuh-uh

    Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo has not yet pledged to protect transit dollars. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

    Our Governor-elect is not starting things off on the right foot with transit. While speaking yesterday, he declined to pledge to protect transit funding, and in fact, spokes words that should send up the warning lights. Andrew Bernstein has the transcript:

    Cuomo: “I understand the concern. Everyone — especially in a declining budget environment, where we are now, everyone — we just met with the environmental groups. They’re very concerned that nobody raids the funds that should be going to the environment. People who are involved in transit want to make sure nobody raids the funds that are involved in mass transit. I understand the concerns, and that’s the balance of putting together the budget.”

    REPORTER: That means you’re not committed to allowing the money –

    Cuomo: “You can’t say — money is fungible to a certain extent. There are a lot of needs the state has to fund and it’s the balancing of those needs that will be done through the budget process.”

    As Streetsblog’s Ben Fried said, these are “scary words for transit riders.” New York must vow to stop taking revenue collected in the name of transit and using it instead to plug holes in the state’s general budget. The New York City Transit Riders Council said it will try to push for a measure in New York similar to California’s Prop 22, but this change must start at the top.

    To drive home this reality, Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch released a report today on the state’s transportation network, and he urged New York to invest more in transit. “In this period of austerity, national economic uncertainty, unpredictability of federal funding, and rising social service costs there is an increasing risk that funding for infrastructure investments will be curbed to dangerous levels,” he said in a statement. “To preserve safety and prepare for economic recovery, the State must craft a multi-year transportation capital investment strategy that sets clear and attainable priorities, identifies reliable revenues, and balances competing regional demands.”

    The report — embedded below — is a scary statement on the state of the transportation funding. New York, he says, “lacks the revenues necessary to maintain its transportation system in a state of good repair” and “has no credible strategy for meeting future needs.” He further warns:

    Right now, neither the MTA nor DOT has adequate resources to cover both its operating expenses and the level of new borrowing demanded by its proposed capital program. New York, therefore, faces a choice: significantly higher taxes, fees, fares, and tolls or a drastically diminished transportation program that could jeopardize safety and economic well-being.

    On the MTA, he discusses the authority’s debt problem. Essentially, the state must contributing more to the MTA’s coffers instead of relying upon bonded debt to maintain and build out the transit network. Says the report:

    Today, debt service exerts pressure on the MTA program just as it does on the DOT program. A debt restructuring carried out between 2000 and 2002 took advantage of lower interest rates, which reduced debt service on the bonds outstanding at the time. Lower debt service payments in the short term allowed for additional borrowing for a new capital plan without new taxes and fees or higher fares; but the refinancing resulted in a dramatically larger debt burden and debt service payments in future years. Bonding, as a share of the 2000-2004 MTA capital plan, jumped to 55.7 percent from its traditional share of around 36 percent. Between 2000 and 2008, the MTA nearly doubled its debt burden from $13 billion to $24 billion. The restructuring also extended the maturity dates of the MTA’s outstanding debt. If the restructuring had not extended the maturity dates on MTA debt, a substantial part of the MTA bonds outstanding in 2000 would now be paid off, freeing up revenues to support new borrowing capacity. Instead, the maturity schedule for the more- than-$31 billion in outstanding MTA debt is back-loaded into the 2020’s and 2030’s; and the MTA is in acute need of new revenues to service its existing debt and finance new borrowing for capital purposes. Short-term fiscal and political relief came at a long-term cost.

    This imbalance in the MTA’s budget was masked for a short time by the economic bubble of the mid-2000s, when the real estate taxes that support the MTA generated surpluses for the agency. Instead of reserving these surpluses, the agency was under pressure to use them to hold down fares; it even offered short-lived and short-sighted fare holidays amounting to $45 million. When economic conditions changed and dedicated tax revenues plummeted, the MTA found itself without enough revenues to meet both its operating costs and its debt service payments.

    To solve these problems, Ravitch urges the state to search for new revenues sources. He doesn’t flat-out call for congestion pricing, but he has been a long-term advocate of a fee-based transit funding solution that involves traffic calming as well. He also calls upon the state to institute “special taxing districts” that capture revenues from “certain mega- projects that have the potential to dramatically increase economic activity and property values in an area.” In essence, developers would have to pay higher tax rates to ensure better transit — something the city should have instituted to secure funding for the 7 line stop at 10th Ave. and 41st St.

    Ultimately, Ravitch says the ongoing capital projects such as the Second Ave. Subway are safe simply because the MTA would be on the hook for billions of dollars in penalties if work stopped now. But the state must figure out how to close the capital budget’s $10 billion gap. To do so through borrowing would require at least another $700 million in MTA revenues, and the bond payments would come due decades from now.

    The state, as we know, is facing a crisis. Can the new governor begin to solve it? So far, he hasn’t sounded too willing to try.

    After the jump, read Ravitch’s report. (more…)

  • Pondering another MTA political attack

    As Andrew Cuomo prepares to take over the Governor’s Mansion in Albany, he’s going to have to deal with the MTA sooner or later. Despite his non-statements on transit during the campaign, Cuomo’s team will have to identify funding sources for the MTA’s operating budget and address a gap in the authority’s capital budget as well. Early indications are that another MTA raid may happen soon and that Cuomo’s proposed spending cap could unnecessarily hinder transit investments.

    In addition to these problems of funding, Cuomo also needs to restore public confidence in the MTA. Despite the fact that the authority has cut 3500 jobs and removed $500 million from its budget this year and over $700 million going forward, politicians just aren’t listening. Take, for instance, a letter from Mike Long, the chairman of the state’s small Conservative Party. While Long obviously has an agenda, his letter is another anti-MTA screed that ignores reality. He writes:

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is notorious for increasing fees instead of looking for ways to cut expenses and frankly, New York’s citizens are unable to absorb the latest increase set to begin on December 30, 2010.

    On behalf of all New Yorkers, I am asking you to do all in your power to prevent the MTA from collecting the tolls and fees set to increase at the end of next month. If the officials of the MTA fail to follow your request, I would encourage you to include as one of your very first priorities, as Governor of the State of New York, the rollback of the increased fees and tolls on our bridges and tunnels. If the MTA Board Members continue to deny your request, I would encourage you to demand an audit to expose how the MTA mismanages its funds, has not reduced its workforce, will not streamline bus and subway routes and schedules, and its dependence on the outrageous tolls paid by the driving public to subsidize losses due to poor management. The present toll on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge of $11.00 is outrageous; to increase it to $13.00 is unconscionable.

    On the one hand, Long is playing fast and loose with the facts. The Verrazano toll will be $13 only for the very small percentage of people who pay cash only. The E-ZPass rate will keep the toll under $10, and Staten Island residents who use an E-ZPass will pay $5.76. That’s hardly unconscionable. He also lays claim to the believe that “instead of looking for ways to cut expenses,” the MTA is raising fares and tolls when in reality, they’re raising fares and tolls after they both cut expenses and had money stolen by the state.

    On the other hand though, Long’s statements, while factually questionable, highlight a deeper problem: The MTA is suffering from a credibility gap. So even if the authority says it will cut hundreds of millions of dollars and then does so, politicians will not examine the books to verify the claims. They’ll simply dismiss them out of hand.

    At this point, Andrew Cuomo has to figure out a way to restore some level of public confidence in the qualified people atop the MTA. Perhaps he should order Thomas DiNapoli, the state comptroller who just won reelection, to complete a forensic audit on the MTA. If — or when — this audit finds that the authority has indeed streamlined operations and trimmed costs, who will the politicians finger then? They certainly won’t blame themselves even when they should.

  • Crazy ideas: Directly electing the MTA Board

    Throughout October’s campaign season as the MTA repeatedly came under fire, those running for office continued to call for more direct control over the MTA Board. Some of the candidates wanted to bring the MTA under the auspices of the New York State Department of Transportation or under the direct control of the governor. Others even advocated for the direct election of MTA Board representatives. New York politicians, it seems, do not know their history.

    Once upon a time, the city’s transit oversight fell to the Board of Transportation, a six-man body appointed solely by the mayor. Transit policy was highly political, and it led to both disastrous fare policies and overbuilt subway lines. It is impossible to raise the fare when politicians are held directly accountable for those hikes, and even though we dislike fare hikes, it is often necessary to raise fares at the very least to keep pace with inflation.

    Cap’n Transit has another take on the issue. He explores the idea within the framework of democracy, access and accountability. I’ll quote at length but do visit the good Captain’s site:

    Many years ago, I was in an officer of a small student political group in a distant city, and I got a call from a bicycle activist I knew. He wasn’t a member of our organization, or even our political party, but he was running for election to an obscure municipal board that just happened to have influence over bicycle policy. I helped this guy reach out to the student body in a way that clearly violated campus rules, and he won by a small margin, quite possibly entirely due to that outreach. Now that city has over four hundred miles of bicycle facilities.

    Sounds great, right? The results are impressive, but the whole thing was completely undemocratic. A tiny, dedicated group was able to sway an election to represent a fifth of the city. Only a small number of people were informed enough to know who they were voting for when they went into the booth. If you want democracy, you want the issues and agendas to be disclosed and debated well in advance. The only reason I feel comfortable with this is the knowledge that the pro-car people were pulling the same kinds of tricks. It was a dirty fight, so we fought dirty.

    I’m pretty sure that this kind of dirty politics…is the kind of thing that regularly happens on school boards around the country. If you’ve been paying attention for the past year and a half, you’ll be well aware of the number of people who haven’t. Very few people know who their State Legislators are, and of those people, a tiny proportion know that these legislators have been redirecting money “dedicated” to the transit system for other purposes. Would you trust these people to vote for a representative to the MTA board?

    …The most democratic way to run New York’s transit system is to have it be an executive agency just like the Department of Transportation…In fact, it might not have been as easy for Cuomo to duck the question of transit funding for as long as he did, if it had been clearly spelled out that the Governor controls the subway system.

    Even beyond the theoretical, the MTA was born out of the need to remove transit decision-making from the political sphere. Politicians shouldn’t be making technocrat decisions that demand and require a certain expertise that they don’t possess, and I’d much rather have Jay Walder heading the MTA than suffering through a politically-dominated authority board. Fares cannot rise appropriately and service cannot be adjusted to meet demands without the right people making the decisions.

    The real problem — and it’s not a sexy one — is oversight. Despite a new authority oversight board that doesn’t yet have much teeth, New York doesn’t have an adequate mechanism for authority oversight. The mayor has a few votes on the MTA Board and so too does the governor. But absent legislative action and the power of appointment*, there is no executive control over the MTA Board.

    *It would help if the state executive would appoint qualified people to the Board as well. In the past, real estate interests dominated the MTA Board when a proper mix of people would involve transit planners, financial experts, union representatives and rider advocates. Eliot Spitzer’s and David Paterson’s appointments have been strong steps in the right direction.

    So fix the MTA, if it’s truly broken, by consolidating power but do so in a way that doesn’t jeopardize fiscal contributions. The mayor wants his say and can threaten to remove funding if the governor seizes the MTA. The governor might want oversight but can’t risk losing the money. Even outside of the realm of politics, the MTA is still a political problem.

  • Three private companies bid for LI Bus as future hazy

    Nassau County has not invested in its own bus system. (Graph via TSTC)

    The MTA’s showdown with Nassau County has continued into the fall as neither party has given up ground in the fight over Long Island Bus. The MTA is being forced to pick up millions in costs for Nassau County’s bus system while the county will throw in only $9.1 million. The MTA has, rightly so, threatened to pull the plug on this service without more operating subsidies.

    Ideally, as the Nassau County legislature recently discussed, the county would slowly up its contributions to the bus route while the MTA would continue to operate the transit system. The MTA would be receptive to this plan, but the Nassau County Executive has engaged in a classic misdirection. He’s called for Jay Walder’s resignation instead of taking responsibility for his county’s bus route.

    The solution from Nassau County’s side has been privatization, and as Newsday reported yesterday, three companies have submitted bids for an LI Bus takeover. MV Transit from Fairfield, California, First Transit from Cincinnati and Veolia Transportation from Lombard, Illinois, have all submitted bids. The county is amidst reviewing bids, but it seems to want a deal that will, as Mobilizing the Region notes, allow it to capture fare revenue without contributing any direct subsidies.

    Unfortunately for Nassau County, even in areas of the country where these private operators run bus routes, they do so with heavy subsidies. Veolia, for instance, receives $36 million in subsides from Tuscan, Arizona, where ridership is half that of Nassau County’s Long Island Bus. Nassau County wants to have its cake and eat it too.

    The MTA and Nassau County will continue to work toward a solution, and the authority has to give the county 60 days’ notice before withdrawing service. Still, Nassau County is playing chicken with a service that its residents can ill afford to lose. It is a dangerous game indeed. “I can’t get around Long Island without the bus,” one 40-year rider said. “There are a million of us who can’t.”