Ever so slowly, New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo is working his way through the pile of legislation the state Assembly and Senate left on his desk when their session expired in June. Yesterday, we learned that the Governor signed an MTA smoking ban into law. No longer are commuters permitted to smoke on LIRR or Metro-North platforms.

Now, it’s all well and good that Cuomo decided to approve the smoking ban. It should make the train environment far more pleasant for those folks who do not like the smell, experience or health impact of secondhand smoke. But that bill is a minor one in the grand scheme of the MTA. It won’t, for instance, protect the MTA for future raids on its supposedly dedicated revenue streams. That’s what the lockbox bill — which currently sits on Cuomo’s desk, sadly unsigned by the Governor — would do.

So far, Cuomo has given no indication of what he will do with the lockbox bill, and it’s tough to discern his plans. For years, Governors have covered their fiscal deficits by borrowing liberally from the MTA’s revenue streams, and Cuomo would be handcuffing himself were he to sign the bill. Still, dedicated dollars are dedicated dollars, and the MTA needs to know that the money is secure. With razor thin margins propping up a shaky budget, the authority can’t afford to find itself down $200 million between July and November because the Governor or the Assembly has decided to reappropriate the money.

With silence from Albany, transit advocates and union leaders are working to get Cuomo’s attention. Daily News columnist Pete Donohue, an important voice for transit in that paper, spoke out in favor of the bill earlier this week. “Essentially,” he writes, “lawmakers would have to own up to what they’re doing in a more public way and specify some of the pain that will result. They couldn’t hide behind the MTA, which by design provides political cover when news is grim.”

Donohue writes of a letter signed by various unions and advocates that urges Cuomo to pass the bill, and I have a copy of that letter. It discusses the importance of the legislation and urges Cuomo to sign it. It reads in part:

The strong principle of the legislation – that MTA dedicated funds should be spent as intended – has attracted a wide range of supporters. These include business leaders, labor and trade unions, transit and environmental advocates, environmental justice and community groups.

The “lockbox” bill was a reaction to the diversion of $260 million in transit funds over the last three years. These diversions contributed to the worst metropolitan-area transit service cuts in memory. They included the elimination of 36 bus routes and 570 bus stops; killing all or parts of three subway lines; and burdening millions of city and suburban riders with lengthier waits, more crowding, extra transfers and longer trips. Commuter rail riders have had their trains eliminated and stops added to remaining trains. Para-transit service for individuals with disabilities has been made even less convenient or, in some communities, eliminated completely.

Our groups understand that New York State faces extremely serious financial woes. But raiding dedicated transit funds is poor policy. The dedicated taxes and fees that flow into the dedicated fund were explicitly created, and politically justified, to provide the MTA with a “stable and reliable dedicated funding source.” Additionally, the $260 million diverted from the dedicated funds aggravated declining dedicated tax revenue caused by the economic downturn.

Our groups support your goal of restoring fiscal responsibility to New York State. This bill is consistent with your goal of ending New York’s fiscal shell game. It is basic good governance to keep the promise to taxpayers and transit riders that dedicated transit funds will be spent on transit.

One quarter of the state’s workforce relies on mass transit to get to work. They, their employers, and the economy rely on these dedicated taxes to help pay for subway, bus and commuter operations and transit capital projects.

Cuomo has so far been willing to take political risks and do things because they seem to be the right move to do. He ushered a gay marriage bill through Albany and recently signed a complete streets piece of legislation. The MTA lockbox should be next. Protect the money. Protect transit. New York City’s and New York State’s futures will depend on it.

I certainly picked an eventful week to go on vacation, eh? Between signal fires near Coney Island and torrential rains that of course led to some subway flooding, the past few days have been chock full o’ service changes. But much like everything else in New York, the subway system goes on even when people leave for a few days. I’ll be doing some more traveling this week, but this time, my journeys will be within the U.S. I’ll try to post as often as I can.

As I dig through my backlog of news, I start with a story from the end of last week. A new Quinnipiac Poll on all things New York found some intriguing numbers when it comes to the MTA. Despite the fact that most New Yorkers begrudgingly deal with the authority on a daily basis, they want to see more economic support for the MTA.

The first question concerned the overall level of support for the MTA. “As you may know,” the poll asked, “the MTA is the agency which provides rail and bus service in the NY Metropolitan area. Do you think the state government should provide additional funds to the MTA, or not?” The answer shows a clear geographical divide.

A whopping sixty-two percent of New York City residents say the state government should provide additional funds, but only 41 percent of suburbanites and just 30 percent of upstate New Yorkers agree. Of course, that’s not too surprising considering upstate New York’s love-hate relationship with the city. They love to take our tax dollars; they have to use the New York economy to bolster some poor areas. But they refuse to offer up any modicum of support. New York City wouldn’t get much state money if it were up to people who don’t live here. That’s just the reality of New York’s blue state/red state internal divide.

The support from within the five boroughs isn’t too surprising either, but it’s a comforting figure in an age when politicians are loathe to do anything to help the MTA. New York City commuters know that more state support will keep fares lower and keep services running frequently. We’ve seen what happens when the MTA cuts services, and no one wants to live through it. Too bad no one in Albany is listening.

The next question concerned the controversial MTA payroll tax. Passed a few years ago to bolster the MTA’s seriously sagging bottom line, it was the politically viable alternative to any congestion pricing plan. It hasn’t been popular in the seven counties outside of New York City, and politicians such as Lee Zelding keep releasing trumped-up press releases about overturning the tax without offering any real funding solutions instead.

The question: “Currently, employers in New York City and the suburban areas served by the MTA pay a special tax to help the transit agency. Do you think that tax should be increased, remain the same, decreased, or eliminated?”

The results: 46 percent of New York City residents said the tax should remain the same while 15 percent said it should be increased. Just 33 percent of suburban residents said the tax should remain the same while 10 percent said it should be increased and 40 percent said it should be eliminated.

Now, those numbers are far from a mandate on the payroll tax. It enjoys a majority of support within the city and a bare plurality outside. But while politicians make noises about “job-killing taxes” and forensic audits that will magically turn up $1.5 billion in annual savings, New York voters seem to recognize the importance of the revenue generated by the tax. Overturning it without providing for other streams of dollars would be a mistake.

So we like to complain about the subways, but it seems as though enough people understand the dynamics of MTA financing to warrant a closer look from Albany. The politicians though are as silent as they always are.