Category: MTA Politics

While a political realignment swept the nation, New York State seemed largely immune from the incumbent anger and conservative shift so prevalent throughout America on Tuesday night. Andrew Cuomo handily won the governor’s race, and Thomas DiNapoli won reelection to the comptroller spot. The Assembly will remain in Sheldon Silver hands, but it appears as though Dean Skelos and the Republicans will take the State Senate. What does it all mean for the MTA?

For the authority, elections are always a time of uncertainty. While agency heads are nominated for six-year terms, new governors often prefer to remove the old and insert the new. We saw David Paterson replace Elliot Sander just a few months into his term, and Cuomo has yet to give any sort of opinion on Jay Walder. Meanwhile, state Republicans are eying the payroll tax, and the GOP in the House will try to tighten the Congressional purse strings. For an MTA in need of capital funding and trying to keep its operating budget afloat, these political changes could spell more tough times ahead.

At the national leve, Anthony Weiner warns of spending cutbacks in an interview today with the Daily News. By and large, Republicans in the House have little need for the urban voters. We generally don’t vote for them, and as Weiner said, “They seem to blame big cities for everything that goes wrong in the country.”

And so the early 2013 mayoral hopeful believes that transit funding may get the axe. It’s hard to say what he means by transit funding because so much of it it is either guaranteed or tied into pork-filled bills. The feds have already pledged money to the East Side Access and LIRR projects, but those funds came when the New York delegation of Democrats had power in the House and Senate. The key question here should focus around high-speed rail funding — which actually seems to be consolidating around the Northeast Corridor — and the ARC Tunnel money. The dollars New Jersey gave up should stay in the northeast and in transit, but will they?

On a local level, the final outcomes in the State Senate are still up in the air, but early indications are that the Republicans and Dean Skelos will be back in charge. Immediately, the state GOP will try to roll back the payroll tax as suburban Republicans find it an reprehensible funding plan, but they’ll have to overcome a Democratic Assembly and Andrew Cuomo. Perhaps they’ll offer a congestion pricing or tolling plan in exchange for a reduced tax. Even though Cuomo called congestion pricing a non-starter a few weeks ago, swapping in tolls for taxes as a transit revenue source should placate suburban businesses.

But the biggest impact will come from the Governor’s Mansion where Andrew Cuomo now sits, effectively in control of the MTA and its Board. As Gene Russianoff noted in a Streetsblog interview, Cuomo will have the opportunity to appoint three board members in short order. Doreen Frasca’s and Norman Seabrook’s spots have expired, and Nancy Shevell’s come due in June.

Cuomo could also choose to oust Jay Walder as agency CEO and Chair, but both Russianoff and the Regional Plan Association have come out against such a move. “We clearly have our differences with Jay over some issues,” Russianoff said, “but he’s a transit professional and it’s all on the merits.”

While we wait to hear from Cuomo about the fate of Walder, we’re also waiting on Cuomo to make any sort of announcement on transit policy. His campaign was noticeably lacking on ways to solve the MTA’s fiscal problems and his support for public transportation in general. Today, in an extensive article, Katharine Jose, writing for the upstart Capital New York Site, discusses how Cuomo has to get serious about public transportation. The whole piece is well worth a read. I’ll excerpt.

After rehashing the drama of Cuomo’s statements during the campaign — the MTA has “no leadership”; the authority needs “better management” — Jose speaks to the advocates who are cautiously optimistic. “I don’t think that Andrew is that drastic or dramatic,” Neysa Pranger of the RPA said. “I think he’ll maintain support for critical investment projects. I don’t know how much expansion will be put on the books going forward, but I get a sense he has a fundamental understanding of the need for East Side Access —particularly now that A.R.C. is dead, actually…I think he understands good repair, normal replacement—all of that stuff that has his father kind of lived through with the M.T.A. in the ’80s and early ’90s—that you really need to make that investment.”

She then dismisses and dissects the spurious claims about two sets of books and reaches the crux of what Cuomo has to do and how it relates to Walder:

In some ways, what commissioner Jay Walder is doing for the M.T.A. is what Cuomo wants to do for the state. Cuomo plans to consolidate some of the thousands of local government entities in the state to make them more efficient and less expensive; Walder has taken the authority’s numerous departments—a legacy of the fact that the agency was formed from a number of different agencies—and folded it into one. Cuomo wants to avoid more spending; Walder has found $500 million dollars in recurring savings, despite budget cuts imposed by Albany.

Cuomo’s office did not respond to the Jose’s interview requests, and the money quotes instead from Robert Paaswell, director emeritus of the University Transportation Research Center:

“The media sort of forgets that the M.T.A. has a major job in New York, and that’s to provide eight million trips a day, and to do it safely,” Paaswell said. “They think of it as this massive organization that’s in need of some kind of reform. And if I were to ask people the question, which I do because I’m a professor, ‘What do you mean by that? And what kind of reform?’ They’re sort of chanting what the politicians say.”

“You have an organization that’s fairly healthy,” he said. “It provides amazing transportation service every day. The city could not exist without a healthy M.T.A.”

Restructuring will be needed, he said, but because of changing circumstances that are much bigger than the agency itself.

“It’s beginning to show signs of strain, because the budget’s been cut dramatically and we’re having reductions in service,” Paaswell said. “I think the governor’s going to have to recognize that the M.T.A. was designed to solve specific problems back in the ’70s, and it’s done it fairly well, but it’s reached the point where it can no longer afford the programs that it needs to have in place based on the funding sources that it was originally thought to have, so he has to deal with that—he has to deal with the [question], What should an M.T.A. look like? Do we need this incredibly complex organization?”

The answer to that final question would appear to be no. As Walder has shown, the MTA has a lot of fat to trim, and he trimmed it quickly and efficiently. For now, we’ll wait for Cuomo to talk and Cuomo to act, but he should be aware that the fate of the MTA — and public transit in New York City — is now in his hands.

Over the past few weeks, as the MTA has come under fire from New York’s gubernatorial candidates, I’ve been a staunch defender of MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder. Handed an impossible situation, Walder has made the most of it, and he’s moving the system forward as well. While Andrew Cuomo hasn’t made a public statement on the issue one way or another, Walder deserves to be kept on as head of the MTA.

Today, a group of transit advocates have issued a call to both GOP nominee Carl Paladino and Cuomo to support Walder. The executive staff and board of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign put out the call this morning. “We feel the attacks directed toward Mr. Walder during the gubernatorial campaign have been unwarranted,” the letter says. “Whoever is elected governor will inherit an agency with grave fiscal and management challenges. In order to overcome these, the MTA will require bold, innovative leadership and strong support from you and your staff. Mr. Walder’s impressive tenure proves he will be able to rise to the challenges ahead.”

Neither campaign has responded yet to the letter, but I have to hope that Cuomo, the likely winner who hasn’t said much of substance about the state’s transportation issue, is listening. Not only does Walder deserve to stay because of the merits, but he also would enjoy a significant payment in the form of a Golden Parachute if Cuomo tries to oust him. While not by itself a reason to keep an undeserving CEO around, Walder’s record should be allowed to speak for itself.

In a sense, it’s a sad commentary on transit that, one week before Election Day, the city’s leading advocates had to send this letter. We’ve seen the MTA openly mocked for spurious claims — “two sets of books,” for instance — and voters are either mislead by their elected officials or willfully ignorant of the true situation. “We can say it until we’re blue in the face, and people still repeat this nonsense,” MTA Board member Doreen Frasca said yesterday. “Maybe we should all wear T-shirts or something.”

Still, lies are repeated, initiatives scorned. Mass transit in New York needs the support of the next governor, and Jay Walder will be the MTA’s biggest defender and loudest fighter. His job security shouldn’t even be a campaign issue.

After the jump, the TSTC letter in full. (more…)

Andrew Cuomo will be New York’s next governor. Barring some sort of catastrophic revelation over the last two weeks of the campaign, the current Attorney General should cakewalk to Albany as he trounces Carl Paladino and a field of lesser candidates. He’ll inherit a state fraught with financial problems and an MTA suffering from malign neglect in Albany. Yet, in light of what he’s said, I fear that Cuomo, a New York City guy through and through, will not be a forward-looking governor when it comes to transportation.

Since he started campaigning, Cuomo has been mostly silent on matters relating to the MTA. His copious campaign materials — including a new 273-page urban agenda — make scant mention to issues of public transit, and his comments have been dismaying to say the least. During Monday’s debates, he fell back on that spurious claim that the MTA has two sets of books and has repeatedly spoken of “reexamining” the payroll tax that provides the MTA with $1.5 billion annually. He hasn’t offered up any alternative funding sources and, in fact, seems intent on shutting the door on realistic — and necessary — alternatives.

In introducing this new urban agenda, one that focuses more on poverty, jobs and housing than on urban sustainability, Cuomo faced the transit music as reporters started peppering him with questions on all matters MTA. Andrea Bernstein from Transportation Nation has more:

But all the journalists there, pretty much, wanted to talk transit. In fact, I didn’t raise the subject. A Daily News reporter did. “There’s going to be a need for more efficiency,” Cuomo said of the MTA. “More effectiveness, better management. You can’t have over $500 million in overtime. You can’t have thousands of people making over $100,000 a year . I believe the Governor should be accountable for the MTA.”

My turn. But what about funding for the MTA? Does he support congestion pricing? [As Mayor Bloomberg does?] Bridge tolls? [As Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch does?] “Congestion pricing was proposed,” Cuomo parried. “It was discussed. It was basically rejected by the legislature. I don’t know that there’s been any change in opinion. I think it’s moot. I understand the concept. I understand that it was rejected. I don’t think it would pass if it came up again, unless something changed.”

Without offering specifics, he added. “There’s going to be a number of revenue raisers. The instinct is going to be to say ‘more money more money more money.’ I understand that. Part of the discipline I want to bring is a fiscal discipline to the state and the MTA. The answer can’t always be more money.”

Already, the problem is obvious: Cuomo doesn’t appear to have a plan, and he’s already closed the door on revenue-generating initiatives that for a variety of reasons — social, environmental, economic — should happen. New York City residents overwhelmingly support congestion pricing if the revenue is earmarked for transit improvements, but Cuomo, without even trying to work with the legislature, claims congestion pricing is a non-starter.

He also doesn’t understand that while overtime abuse is a problem, overtime is going to be necessary for a 24-hour transit system such as the one in New York City. The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate all overtime; it should be to eliminate unnecessary overtime. Before even getting elected, Cuomo seems to be giving up.

The reporters though didn’t let up:

But then Melissa Russo of WNBC Channel 4 asked (I’m paraphrasing): how could he say, if it didn’t happen, it won’t happen? What about all the other things he wants to happen — like government reform? Isn’t the problem that the legislature hasn’t made them happen? Cuomo said: “Melissa, there is no doubt just because it didn’t happen in the past, it can’t be the precedent that it won’t happen in the future, otherwise we would get nothing done. My point is I don’t want to go to revenue raisers first.”

Then Marcia Kramer of Channel 2 chimed in (paraphrase, again). So what’s his plan to raise capital funds for a 21st century transit system (she actually said, “21st century transit system.” “Marcia, I –there is no doubt that the MTA requires large sums of money to operate. There’ no doubt that the capital projects have to be funded. But my response is the same. Fiscal discipline, look at the word discipline. What I’m trying to say about state government and the authorities is the first instinct has to be how do we do more with less?”

“Once you thoroughly exhaust that process, if you get to the point when you say, we looked at the budget with a fine-tooth comb, we did everything we could and we have not determined we need additional revenue then you have the conversation at that time.”

Fiscal discipline. That sounds good to me, and for once, Cuomo seems to be speaking in realistic platitudes instead of in diatribes divorced from that reality. Fiscal discipline in a time of tight funds is, of course, the right goal, but it’s worth noting that the MTA has been on a path of fiscal discipline for much of the last year. MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder doesn’t just walk around saying “Make every dollar count”; he’s actually realized this goal by trimming $730 million in annual expenses from the authority’s operating budget.

The problem though is one of fixed costs and future obligations. At a certain point, the MTA has to maintain a large workforce to sustain operations across hundreds of miles, three different rail ways, extensive bus routes and a bridge and tunnel network. It has to fulfill its pension obligations; it has to make its debt payments; it has to continue to invest in capital projects. And that’s where Cuomo seemingly fails. He doesn’t have a plan for generating revenue and wants to drill down on a source — the payroll tax — the MTA can’t afford to lose. For a guy from Queens, I expected much more from our future governor.

As Election Day nears, New Yorkers will soon go to the polls to select the next state executive, and whether voters realize or not, they’re doing so against a backdrop of the MTA’s shaky financial picture. Yet, the candidates don’t care. Carl Paladino, the GOP candidate likely to be trounced, has no grasp of MTA policy, and Andrew Cuomo’s statements haven’t been much better. The gubernatorial debate earlier this week was a debacle, and I’ve been wondering if anyone has a plan.

While the politicians haven’t come through, today, the Drum Major Institute and Transportation Alternatives have released their version of a pro-transit platform. The report carries with a lofty name — Solving the MTA’s Budget Crisis and Reinvesting in Mass Transit: A Five-Step Platform for the Next Governor of New York State — but it is decidedly even-keeled and common-sensical.

“The governor and state legislature are directly responsible for the MTA’s finances: they decide how much revenue flows to the authority, and only they have the power to put the MTA on sound financial footing,” the introduction reads. “While MTA executives can continue to cut costs at the margins, only a concerted plan led by the next governor can redirect investment to the state’s mass transit system and avert a fiscal disaster. A true Albany reformer willing to make tough choices would move the MTA away from costly borrowing and make smart investments that will drive renewed economic growth, boost the state’s economic competitiveness, and save taxpayers money in the long-term.”

Noting that “without the New York City region’s transit system, it would be physically impossible for the region to be the home of the largest concentration of jobs in the country and the source of $1.2 trillion of economic activity,” the report proposes five items the next governor should do to help the MTA:

1. Return the $160 million taken from the MTA over the last year by the state legislature and prevent state lawmakers from using dedicated transit funds for other purposes.
2. End the fiscally irresponsible reliance on debt by restoring the state’s contribution to the MTA capital program to 20 percent of the program’s cost.
3. Protect millions of straphangers from threats to repeal the mobility tax which, if repealed, would result in yearly MTA budget deficits of over one billion dollars.
4. Create sustainable sources of transit revenue, funded by everyone who benefits from transit, including riders, drivers and businesses.
5. Lead New York’s congressional delegation to secure higher levels of federal funding that would help expand public transit service access to underserved areas.

The report, available on the web and as a PDF, backs up these assertions. For instance, in discussing the payroll tax, a revenue source both gubernatorial candidates have promised to “reexamine,” DMI and Transportation Alternatives lays out why it’s both a necessary and equitable tax. MTA expenditures, they say, for Metro-North and LIRR services are “roughly proportional to the amount of mobility tax revenue” paid by the constituent counties. It might not be popular, but without that tax, the MTA would be another $1.5 billion in the red.

While the first three points are exceedingly simple for the next governor to implement, the real key to this platform is point four. DMI has beaten this drum for years, and Transportation Alternatives has a well: The next governor must be a leading on sustainability in the New York region. The City Council, years ago, requested a home rule measure for congestion pricing that didn’t pass Albany amidst turmoil in the capital. To ensure that the MTA has a source of dedicated funds that also serves to encourage transit ridership, some form of congestion pricing or tolling is a must. It would, says the report, “bring greater fairness to the city and region’s transportation networks.”

Ultimately, New York City voters should press their next governor to find a way to support the MTA. Bashing the organization may be en vogue today, but those in charge are trying to do what they can to maintain a sagging system. What happens if the MTA fails would be calamitous. “Without new sources of revenue, riders face more severe service cuts and fare hikes in the future,” the proposal says. “As a result, drivers will face increased congestion as straphangers abandon the transit system and drive instead.”

Jay Walder, rightly so, doesn’t want to get involved in the current race for governor of New York. During a breakfast yesterday at NYU’s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, Walder stressed his firm desire to stay out of electoral politics. “I have successfully avoided being involved in the campaign,” he said, and with just under two weeks under Election Day, he doesn’t plan to jump into the fray anytime soon.

Yet, Walder’s speech — an impassioned defense of the MTA’s cost-cutting measures as well as an acknowledgement that the authority can and should be doing better — can be read as the perfect counterpart to the baseless bashing session in which the gubernatorial candidates engaged earlier this week. Whereas the state’s next executive — the leader who can set the policy tone and name an MTA head — might not know much about the current state of the MTA (or might just be pandering to a public who finds sport in critiquing the public authority), Walder seems to have a firm grasp on the challenges he and his organization face.

Take a listen to the seven minutes of criticism that the candidates for governor lobbed at the MTA on Monday night. If you can stomach the fifth mention of two sets of books — a claim disproved in court six years and debunked yet again last year — without wanting to throw something at these politicians, you’re a stronger person than I.

[audio:http://bkabak.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/news20101018_nysgovdebate_mtaquestion.mp3|titles=news20101018_nysgovdebate_mtaquestion]

The ideas bandied about range from inane to ludicrous. One candidate proposed privatizing the MTA and using the proceeds from the sale of authority property to fund the state’s pension obligations. A few stressed the need for either direct control of the MTA by the state’s governor or New York City’s mayor. No one acknowledged that through board appointments and the political process that the state executive and legislature and city leader already exert significant control over the MTA, and no one fessed up to the fact that the MTA is a state agency that exists because of a grant of power from the legislature.

But that’s neither here nor there. Expecting informed politicians in New York is akin to relying on the G train during the weekends. Let’s instead look at the answer that matters: that given by Andrew Cuomo, the candidate with a 37-point lead among likely voters. His transcript:

“In some ways, the MTA is just a gross symbol of the problem that a lot of these state agencies and authorities have. Number one: it wastes a tremendous amount of money. And number two, nobody’s in charge. In terms of the amount of money they waste, two sets of books, certainly; $500 million in overtime, something like 8,000 people make more than $100,000, the pension system, the payroll system – it’s just another example of government (that’s) inefficient, wasteful – and government just doesn’t get it. Everybody else has to live within their means, not government.

The MTA also has the additional issue of nobody’s in charge. It’s an authority. It’s a joint board. It’s the mayor, it’s the governor, it’s everybody, it’s nobody. Put the governor in charge. If it doesn’t work, it should be up to the governor and everybody should know. The fraud in the MTA – we did a case on the Long Island Railroad, which is part of the MTA – over 90% were on disability (cut off by moderator). It can’t be.”

Nobody, Cuomo said twice, is in charge at the MTA. Someone should tell Jay Walder that because he certainly presents the aura of being in charge. At the breakfast yesterday, Walder spoke of his responsibilities with the right mix of authority and knowledge. The MTA, he said, is probably the most important authority in the state. It provides an “absolutely essential and critical public service,” one used by millions of New Yorkers every day. “That doesn’t,” he said, “exempt us from being as efficient as possible.”

During his speech, Walder laid out the MTA’s internal cost-cutting measures. Regular SAS readers know that the MTA has saved over $500 million this year by cutting 10 percent of its overtime spending, by eliminated 3500 jobs which include 20 percent of its administrative staffing at headquarters, by renegotiated with its contractors and suppliers and by consolidating its organizational structure, among others.

On the one hand, said Walder, the MTA should do this to run a leaner ship, and on the other, it had to do it to regain political support and public credibility. “We need to show people and politicians we were tightening our own belt,” he said. To gain trust, the MTA has to show that it is “using dollars wisely” and “show people we were being more productive and more efficient.”

The problem Walder faces is that no one listens. The public would prefer to blame the MTA for sluggish commutes, weekend changes and dirty stations. No one likes fares hikes or service cuts, but when the political support is gone, the MTA can only do so much to generate savings or create more revenue streams. Since politicians are insulated from responsibility by the structure of the MTA and the way most people don’t understand how public authorities in New York are established, these elected officials and those running for office can simply pile on as the people in charge of the MTA are engaged in a serious and largely successful effort to solve its economic problems.

On Monday, perhaps, as many have said, Cuomo was simply pandering. He was saying what he had to say to shore up his support, and once he’s in office, he’ll do what Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson have done: He’ll let the MTA run itself and let those who know what they’re doing take the reins. Yet, without candidates who speak the truth and take responsibility for the state of public transit in the city, without politicians willing to speak out for the Jay Walders of the city, we’ll be left with eroding support for transit and massive political missteps.

It’s hard to imagine an MTA worse than it had been, but if the next governor would to take control and oust yet another qualified head one year into his tenure at the helm, things could easily go from bad to worse. That’s a fate we cannot afford.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Due to a last-minute trip to California, I didn’t have the chance to watch the debate amongst the various candidates for governor last night, but when I landed, I watched some of the proceedings online and read the commentary. The proceedings turned into a veritable MTA bash-fest last night, and for seven minutes, the various candidates — including the front-running Andrew Cuomo — proved that they know absolutely nothing about the city’s and state’s most important public authority. They recycled claims of financial mismanagement, highlighted the disproved line about two sets of books and failed to acknowledge the changes that Jay Walder has wrought. A few of the candidates even called for the MTA to be brought under the control of the governor, a foolish plan on so many levels bloth politically and economically.

I’ll bring you more analysis from this debate over the next few days, including some video, but for now, I want to point you to Ben Fried’s recap on Streetsblog. He summarizes:

If Cuomo was trying to say that there’s no political accountability for the MTA, he failed. And his diagnosis — make the MTA a state agency — is off-base. Putting the governor in charge of the MTA won’t make the state legislature less obstinate about funding transit. Until someone with a big bully pulpit, like New York’s next governor, starts describing the threat to transit riders accurately, elected officials will still be able to duck blame for fare hikes and service cuts.

This anti-incumbent election season is as good a time as any for a statewide candidate to turn Albany into the punching bag for transit woes instead of the MTA. It shouldn’t be hard to get some of these points across:

• If Albany hadn’t swiped dedicated transit revenues from the MTA last year, the agency would have had at least $100 million more in its purse — enough to stave off cuts to buses and trains.
• Until Albany sorts out its budget problems, transit riders will be at risk of paying for the state’s fiscal mess.
• MTA revenues nosedived with the rest of the economy in 2008, and Albany dysfunction stymied the full funding package recommended by an independent panel.
• Because the Pataki administration forced the MTA to borrow excessively, transit riders are paying the price.

Someone in public office has got to start telling voters what’s actually dragging the transit system down. Otherwise legislators will just have thicker cover the next time transit gets shortchanged in Albany.

I have absolutely no faith that New York’s next governor will right the state’s transportation ship. Mass transit is too important to the economic health of New York City for our politicians to trample all over it, and until we take the fight to the polls and find some candidates who are qualified and knowledgeable enough to run the state, I might just vote for this guy come Election Day.

Turnover and instability at the top of any large business does not lead to forward progress, and in recent years, nowhere has this been more evident than at the MTA. In fact, since I’ve started Second Ave. Sagas, the authority has gone through a variety of people at the top, but current CEO and Chairman Jay Walder says he plans to serve out his term if the next governor is willing to have him.

The revolving door began in late 2006. Even though it was clear that Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer would appoint his own people to head the MTA, outgoing Governor George Pataki reappointed Peter Kalikow as the MTA Chairman to maintain continuity. Once Spitzer named Elliot Sander as the MTA CEO and Executive Director, Kalikow vowed to leave when his own replacement was named, and on Oct. 22, 2007, Dale Hemmerdinger took over as chair. This two-headed management structure did not seem to work, and the pair went down with the MTA’s fiscal ship.

In mid-2009, as Albany prepared to pass a funding plan to shore up the authority’s finances, the state legislature required a reorganization at the top. The CEO and Chairman positions were consolidated into one, and Gov. Davi Paterson named Jay Walder as the new head of the MTA. He would be the third MTA chairman in as many years, and he inherited an authority suffering from managerial instability.

Yesterday, while speaking at the Crain’s New York business breakfast, Walder pledged to finish his six-year term, provided the state’s next governor wants to keep him. “I’d like to stay, I hope to stay, and I expect I’ll stay,” he said.

Walder, who said that he has “no conversation with any candidate,” is wisely staying out of electoral politics. If, as anticipated, Andrew Cuomo wins, I’ve heard that Walder will keep his job. Carl Paladino, on the other hand, has pledged to abolish the MTA. That can’t inspire feelings of job security among the executives at the authority.

I’ve wondered about the MTA’s seemingly arm’s-length approach to electoral politics and its interactions with Albany. The authority doesn’t respond to factually-shaky attacks that legislatures make against it, and the agency doesn’t lobby much. As Kat Stoeffel of The Observer reported, Walder said “that the MTA will ‘always rely on public support,’ but the questions of where to lay the tax burden are outside his job description. Rather, his aim is to present a better product to Albany so ‘we can look Albany in the eye and say we’re using every dollar wisely.’”

By and large, Walder seems to get it. He talked yesterday about his rocky relationship with labor but stressed how he’s making strides in modernizing the system. He cited the countdown clocks, the upcoming wireless service project and the internal spending cuts as signs that he’s committed to reforming the MTA and improving transit in the city.

He addressed too the public skepticism directed toward the MTA:

“I still ride our system every single day. In fact, since last week marked the end of my first year here, I took a look and found that I’ve swiped my MetroCard almost 900 times this year. Yes, I use the system for work – it’s my job to know what’s going on. But really I use it for the same reason everyone else does –- because it’s the best way to get around this region. And so I understand how fundamental the transit system is to New York, and I also understand the frustration people have with the system. The MTA will always be an easy target for criticism. It’s especially easy to look in the rearview mirror and take shots at the MTA. But if you stop and look at what’s happening right now, you will see that today the MTA is pointed in the right direction.”

Of course, actions speak louder than words, but Walder’s actions have, by and large, been a reflection of his words. He may not be perfect, but he’s made more strides than any chair in recent times while bringing some stability to the organization. The next governor would be wise to keep him on board.

When it comes to transit policy, Carl Paladino is the gift that keeps on giving. Just one week after threatening to take apart the MTA piece by piece, the Republican nominee for New York State governor said that he wants to flat-out abolish the MTA. His reasons, of course, make no sense.

As Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News relates, Paladino wants to, in the words of the News reporter, “make the agency a state department that answers directly to the governor.” Of course, Paladino conveniently forgets that the governor is responsible for appointing the MTA head and that the authority already answers to the state assembly’s oversight committee.

The best parts though are Paladino’s direct quotes. He said:

“The bottom line is the MTA as we know it today needs to be abolished so the voters can demand that someone can be held accountable for the rampant waste in the system and the taxes and rider fees that feed the bureaucratic beast…

“The MTA is horribly mismanaged and it’s a sinkhole of money. It’s among the least transparent entities in the world and was even found to have kept two separate sets of books. New Yorkers are paying more each year getting less in service.”

Here, Paladino is flat-out lying. As I’ve documented in the past, the 2003 claim by then-Comptroller and now-convicted felon Alan Hevesi that the MTA kept two sets of books was disproved in federal court. Today, the MTA is not among the least transparent authorities in the country but rather among the most transparent. Its budget documents are on full display for anyone to see. Paladino, apparently, has never bothered to look for the information.

Meanwhile, he’s not wrong to say that the authority historically has been a sinkhole of money, but lately, those in charge have reversed that trend. On Jay Walder’s watch, the MTA has cut $730 million in annual expenses and is working to keep costs under control. New Yorkers do pay more for less service, but that’s because Paladino’s GOP predecessors — and in particular, Rudy Giuiliani and George Pataki — foisted billions of dollars of debt onto the MTA in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

In the end, Paladino explained his rationale in a way that actually makes some sense. “Mayors, governors and legislators want to be able to rail against the MTA,” he said, “but they really want to be insulated against the decisions that they make so the voters can’t blame them for increasing fares and services cuts.”

As Cap’n Transit wrote back in 2008, that’s exactly why the MTA should be abolished. If the voters knew how badly state officials were screwing over transit and how responsible these officials are for fare hikes and service cuts, perhaps we would see a better approach to transit policy.

But Paladino’s original reasons for abolishing the MTA simply do not hold up to scrutiny. The agency is not horribly mismanaged right now, and it’s quite transparent. There’s still a long road toward a lean structure at the authority, but it’s finally on the right track. Turning it into another subsidiary of the New York State Department of Transportation, as Paladino seems to suggest, would be a considerable setback. The MTA as we knew it five years ago needed to be abolished, and that’s the process we’re seeing unfold today.

Barring a monumental upset, Andrew Cuomo, a native of Queens and a son of New York City, will be the state’s next governor, and he will be the second consecutive New York City Democratic to hold that spot. As such, the transit-minded among us might believe that Cuomo would have a good idea or a least a plan for the MTA. Yet, much like his opponent GOP candidate Carl Paladino, who wants to dismantle the MTA, Cuomo’s campaign has been light on substance and higher on the rhetoric.

Speaking to a reporter from The Observer after a rally last week, Cuomo issued a brief statement on the MTA. He said:

“I think you need a total overhaul of the MTA. You have to revisit the payroll tax. We’re going to have to figure out ways to make it more efficient and more economical, because we just can’t afford this anymore.”

For Cuomo, this is the first time he has gone on record to opine on matters relating to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. His 252-page Plan for Action for New York State mentions the MTA just twice, and nothing Cuomo says lends the belief that the Democratic nominee understands the MTA’s financial crisis and why it is of vital importance to the region to solve it. His comments last week aren’t comforting either.

On the one hand, Cuomo isn’t wrong. The MTA must be more efficient and economical because we the state of New York and we the city of New York can’t afford it. We can’t afford to see transit fail, and we can’t afford to pump billions into a system that bleeds money. That is a foregone conclusion.

Yet, Cuomo’s belief that the MTA needs a total overhaul seems misguided. To me, a total overhaul suggests removing the people in charge and replacing them with someone else. Yet, right now, Jay Walder, the MTA CEO and Chair, just one year into the job, should not be dismissed. Handed a sinking ship, Walder has tried to right it by cutting $730 million from its annual budget and bringing technological innovations to the system at the same time. He’s making headway with cost savings and with modernization while trying to work, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, with the various labor unions that make up the MTA’s workforce. As the third Chair in four years, Walder should be allowed to ride out this storm and see the job through.

The final part of Cuomo’s statement — revisiting the payroll tax — should leave transit supporters wary as well. The payroll tax wasn’t an ideal solution, and it’s left suburban counties both disgruntled and looking for legal recourse. But the man in charge in Albany must support it. Right now, the MTA is relying on the payroll tax for $1.5 billion next year and nearly $2 billion annually by 2015. If Cuomo is going to reevaluate the payroll tax, he must find a way to replace that money in the MTA’s budget or else the authority will fail.

Cuomo might be right; the MTA needs an overhaul. But it shouldn’t be one that cuts of the MTA’s nose just to spite its face.