For those of you who like to unplug during the weekend, you may have missed New York City’s biggest Saturday news drop in years. After months of unnecessarily feuding over MTA financing, the governor and mayor agreed on a capital funding split that puts the city on the hook for $2.5 billion and presents a clear win for Andrew Cuomo. I’ll have more on how this deal may affect certain projects. Today, we look at the politics involved.

In The Times Michael Grynbaum explores how this deal won’t stop the political fighting between Cuomo and Bill de Blasio. Two car guys haven’t exactly had their “come to Jesus” moment with regards to support for transit. The Journal meanwhile delved into the ins and outs of the deal. Here’s Josh Dawsey and Andrew Tangel:

According to people familiar with the matter, the agreement that the city will commit $2.5 billion for major repair and expansion projects was largely reached because neither side saw a continuing fight as politically advantageous—and recognized the downsides of battling over funding while the city’s subways were increasingly packed and deteriorating…

For at least a week Mr. de Blasio and his aides wanted to end the fight but also didn’t want to be seen as capitulating to the governor’s demands, people familiar with the matter said. Even as the governor and the mayor quarreled with each other in public, top aides to the mayor discussed how much to offer Albany and called business leaders, advocates and others to gain support. They finally decided to offer $2.5 billion to the state Wednesday night—hoping to strike a deal soon thereafter—and one was essentially completed by late Friday…

Still, the deal over MTA funding presented unanswered questions. Some observers wondered how specifically the state and city would come up with the money. Others wondered how the MTA could reduce costs from its five-year plan without also cutting back on the scope of the projects. Much of the work involves major repairs to keep the system running safely or improvements to bring equipment such as signals and switches up to modern standards.

The authority is expected in coming days to weigh how it might potentially alter some projects’ timing without scaling them back, according to a person familiar with the matter. The MTA’s board is expected to vote on a revised plan later this month. There are also questions about how much sway the city gained from the deal over MTA projects within the five boroughs. Mr. de Blasio said Saturday that the agreement would give riders and taxpayers a stronger voice.

If you read between the lines — or if you read the lines — of Tangel and Dawsey’s report, the city thinks it got something when in reality, it got nothing. Cuomo promised to follow a toothless law, and he’s unlikely to sweep up much, if any, from the MTA anyway considering how politically loaded such a move has become. It’s also not worth the headache over $20-$30 million every year when $8.3 billion is on the table.

Meanwhile, what exactly did the city get? The mix of projects is unlikely to change, and if, say, the MetroCard replacement effort or B division countdown clocks continue to lag, the MTA can point to the $700 million gap between the state’s request and the city’s promise as the cause. It’s ugly all around.

Ultimately, the two car guys remain what they were, but the MTA gets its money. The fighting was unnecessary and led to no new reforms on the spending side that are badly needed. What happens in five years is, as de Blasio and Cuomo figure, someone else’s problem.

In a rare moment of political collaboration that ends months of unnecessary bickering, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio have agreed on a funding scheme that will close the MTA’s capital budget gap, the Governor’s office announced this afternoon. As part of the agreement, the city will contribute $2.5 billion to the 2015-2019 plan, and the MTA will trim $700 million from the spending plan through either “further efficiencies or necessary program reductions.” Although numerous questions remain regarding this deal, the MTA will likely not have to slow down or suspend work on ongoing capital work, and the summer (and early autumn) of endless finger-pointing can draw to a close.

“Our transit system is the backbone of New York City’s, and our entire region’s, economy,” the mayor said in a statement. “That is why we’re making an historic investment – the City’s largest ever general capital contribution – while ensuring that NYC dollars stay in NYC transit, and giving NYC riders and taxpayers a stronger voice. I look forward to continuing to partner with the Governor and the MTA to ensure a transit system that reliably, effectively, and safely serves all of its riders.”

As announced by Cuomo, the deal includes the $8.3 billion from the state to which the governor agreed in July, the $2.5 billion from the city and numerous conditions that may or may not have teeth. According to the press release, the city money includes $1.9 billion from “direct City sources” and $600 million from “alternative non tax levy revenue sources” (such as those funding the Grand Central upgrades). The entire agreement is also dependent upon a series of conditions though if one party breaks a condition, it’s highly unlikely that the plan will fall apart. The conditions are as follows:

1. The City and State will fund on the same schedule on a proportionate basis.
2. Projects in the City which are funded by the $2.5 billion committed by the City (including projects funded through non tax levy sources agreed to with the MTA) will be planned by the MTA Board in collaboration with the City representatives on the MTA Board, with priority consideration given for projects and timing based on input from the City.? Likewise suburban projects which are funded by the suburbs will be planned by the MTA Board in collaboration with suburban representatives on the MTA Board and with priority consideration given for projects and timing based on input from the those suburban communities.
3. The State will not divert any funds or fail to provide any funding committed to this Capital Program or due and owing to the MTA for any other expenses unless in accordance with the provisions of Executive Law 182 passed in 2011. Likewise, the City will not divert any funds or fail to provide any funding committed to this Capital Program or due and owing to the MTA for any other expenses.

Let’s start with the lockbox: This prong of the agreement is entirely pointless. Generally, Cuomo has gone after MTA operations money and not MTA capital money. Additionally, this is an agreement to adhere to a law that has no teeth. Cuomo has in fact raided MTA money since signing the lockbox bill, and nothing in this agreement will prevent him from doing the same. Whether that’s a risk the MTA will take in exchange for a guarantee of over $8 billion is a question to consider.

Meanwhile, the other conditions are words on paper, and it seems as though de Blasio got outmaneuvered at a time when he could have put his foot down on MTA doings. It’s unlikely that city officials will force changes to the MTA’s capital plan as many of the big-ticket items, including Phase 2 of the Second Ave. Subway, are already subway-related. So what did de Blasio get, other than a $2.5 billion bill and months of media boxing with someone who seemingly outfoxed him?

Still, there’s a palatable sense of relief over the fact that this is, for now, over. Yes, the city and state legislatures still need to approve funding sources (as the Citizens Budget Commission reminded us in a statement released via Facebook photo), but that’s a fait accompli at this point. We’ll have to see if the repeated statements that there is “no appetite” in Albany for a congestion pricing plan hold up, but one way or another, the spending will get approved, and the MTA can move forward without on pause on work that must be completed. As Gene Russianoff said in the Straphangers’ statement praising the deal, “Hallelujah!”

I’ve tried not to write too much about the political infighting between Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio over the MTA’s capital plan. As I’ve said in the past, it’s generally just embarrassing for both New York City and New York State. Instead of supporting the city’s most important transportation asset, our two top elected officials have spent most of 2015 yelling at each other through media statements or various proxies and allies and have done nothing to bridge a spending gap that threatens the tenuous reliability of our subway service. As October dawns, nothing has changed.

Here’s the latest: de Blasio hasn’t ponied up more city money because (a) he doesn’t have much control over the MTA and (b) he’s concerned about Cuomo’s ability to reallocate MTA money. I’m less sympathetic to the control argument as de Blasio could ensure that his board appointees act as a solitary voting block, but he has a point about Cuomo’s raiding of the MTA. The governor has reallocated around $270 million for the MTA, and city contributions are often moved around to bolster the commuter railroads rather than NYC Transit’s assets.

Still, according to the Daily News, de Blasio may be willing to contribute an additional $1 billion to the MTA’s capital plan. The News reports that the money would come with “strings attached,” but it’s not clear what those strings are. Perhaps the city would mandate the dollars go toward Phase 2 of the Second Ave. Subway or a Utica Ave. extension. It remains to be seen how the city will find the dollars as the News mentions nothing more than a “revenue-generating scheme.” Could that be a nod to the controversial Move New York plan?

Meanwhile, Cuomo, who hasn’t yet issued one word of explanation as to where the $8.3 billion the state plans to contribute will come from, claims no funding deal is near. This is, to put it mildly, a problem. De Blasio says he wants to see “a real vision for what the state’s commitment will be to the MTA going forward” before adding more dollars, and Cuomo says “If the city wants more control, let them pay $8 billion. Then we’ll talk about more control.” This isn’t politics or leadership; it’s petty bickering.

If the two sides can’t resolve their dispute before the end of the year, the MTA is going to have to start scaling back work because it won’t have access to funding sources to pay contractors. Without an approved capital plan, the agency can spend only on contracts from previous plans. Anything new will have to wait, and work on maintenance and repair efforts will begin to slow down. That leaves our state and city leaders with less than three months to hammer out a plan. They owe it their constituents to figure this one out. It shouldn’t be this hard.

As it stands today, the MTA has some deep-rooted financial problems. To anyone paying attention, this isn’t a surprise. The agency, backed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the TWU, has been fighting with Mayor Bill de Blasio over proper city contributions to the underfunded $28 billion 2015-2019 capital plan. But the MTA has other deep-rooted financial problems involving an utter inability to control costs or deliver projects at a budget comparable to similar transit systems throughout the world. That’s a problem more important than a political fight over a five-year capital plan.

Meanwhile, there is a state comptroller — an elected official — who could take a deeper dive into the MTA’s finances. State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has threatened a forensic audit of the MTA on and off for a few years, and he’s never delivered. Most recently, two reports from his audits leave me skeptical that he’ll ever deliver. One regurgitated publicly available MTA materials, and the other comes across as great big whine about the frequency of trash cans. If this is the best we can get on MTA finances, we’ll be stuck with insane costs for the foreseeable future.

Let’s start with DiNapoli’s trash can audit. He took at look at the MTA’s unnecessarily controversial pilot program to remove trash cans from certain subway stations in an effort to cut down on trash that sits in stations. Noting that trash collection and the rat population at stations without garbage cans is down, the MTA recently expanded the pilot. DiNapoli, however, is not impressed, but it’s not clear why.

He starts his announcement of his audit essentially validating some of the MTA’s claims. “There’s no doubt that removing garbage cans from subway stations saved work and possibly some money for the MTA,” he said. “It’s not clear that it met MTA’s goals of improving straphangers’ experience and making stations cleaner and there’s no evidence it reduced the number of rats in subway stations. After four years the best one can say about this experiment is that it’s inconclusive, except for the fact that riders have a harder time finding a trash can.”

So the MTA doesn’t spend as much on garbage collection, there may or may not be fewer rats in stations without garbage cans and riders have a harder time finding a trash can. To me, that sounds exactly like the point the MTA is trying to prove and a whine from DiNapoli because he might not be able to throw out his trash right away. The rest of the audit [pdf] covers similar territory. Ultimately, DiNapoli’s view must be reconciled with the question of whether the MTA should be in the trash business or the transportation business. PATH, for instance, has no garbage cans, and it works. Numerous other transit agency also eschew garbage collection, and people cart out their trash. Either way, this is low hanging fruit.

The other “audit” is hardly that. Taking information from the MTA’s recent sets of board meeting materials or perhaps just Tweets from transit reporters, DiNapoli has determined that the agency has a capital funding gap at a time of record high ridership. His platitude sums it up: “The MTA is looking to the state and the city to close the remaining $9.8 billion funding gap in its five-year capital program. While we don’t yet know how the gap will be closed, we do know that the public mass transportation system is critical to the state and city economies. If the MTA doesn’t get the funding it needs, the MTA will have to choose between cutting the size of the capital program or borrowing more, which could lead to less reliable service or higher fares and tolls.”

If you want to read his financial outlook, check out this pdf report. I say tell us something we don’t know. Tell us why it cost $2.4 billion to build the 7 line extension — a project that should have cost $1 billion. Tell us why the 2nd Ave. Subway is four years behind schedule. Tell us why it cost over $4 billion. What can the MTA do to save on capital construction spending so the money it can access is enough, as it would be in nearly every other nation in the world? That’s what DiNapoli should do. Until we have a comptroller willing to ask these questions though, the MTA can get away with its monopoly money budgets, and Cuomo and de Blasio will continue to fight.

The MTA’s next five-year capital plan is something of a mess. It’s a $28.5 billion extravaganza that underscores how MTA construction costs are out of control and increasing rapidly. The next five-year plan ekes in just below ten years of spending from 2000-2009, and the icing on the cake is a request for a few billion dollars for Phase 2 of the Second Ave. Subway without putting a concrete cost estimate behind this next segment. It’s not hard to argue the plan is enabling rather than sustaining.

But on the other hand, it’s also vitally important for the MTA to continue ongoing upgrades, maintenance and State of Good Repair work. Without an approved capital plan, the MTA cannot continue work that ensures the subways run more or less on time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It’s hard to overstate this point: If Albany doesn’t approve the MTA’s capital plan before the end of the year, the MTA will have to stop working on projects that maintain and modernize the subway system. No matter how overpriced they are, the work is necessary.

So, with that in mind, it’s time for New York City and New York State leaders to drop the act and come to terms on the MTA’s capital plan. For weeks, we’ve heard Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, either through himself or through proxies such as MTA head Tom Prendergast or TWU President John Samuelsen, battle it out over funding. Cuomo won’t say where the state’s $9 billion commitment will come from; de Blasio won’t promise to up the city’s paltry contribution; and now the MTA is threatening to cut New York City elements of the capital plan. Enough.

If you care to read through the recent history, you’ve got Prendergast threatening punitive cuts to the capital program that would unfairly target New York city, and you’ve got Prendergast slamming de Blasio in the Daily News. You’ve got de Blasio calling on Cuomo to explain the source of funding while expressing valid concerns that Cuomo may continue to raid MTA funding for other state purposes. Streetsblog too is skeptical of Cuomo’s take, and like me, The Observer is sick of it all.

“The governor is being small and counterproductive. He shouldn’t make the millions of New Yorkers who depend on the MTA the pawns in the next round of this gamesmanship,” the paper’s editorial board wrote. “The region’s health, prosperity and growth depend on a modern, well-functioning system. This is not the time for childish tantrums or bullying.”

The solution is a simple one: Cuomo can do a better job explaining where his contribution will come from; his proxy-statement via the Daily News that it wouldn’t involve more borrowing does little to clarify the picture. He can also ensure that the capital plan is approved before the MTA’s ability to fund current work dries up at the end of the year. De Blasio, meanwhile, should commit to additional city funding, and he can look to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the 7 line extension as inspiration. The city can earmark money for a particular project — say, Phase 2 of the Second Ave. Subway or the Mayor’s pet project to send the subway down Utica Ave. — and the MTA will build it. Problem solved so long as our two fighting politicians can find some common ground.

Ultimately, the MTA’s capital plan is suffering from bloat and lack of reform. When the next five-year plan includes higher costs and ever diminishing returns, someone should step in to figure out what can be done about New York’s construction costs that make them exponentially higher than those in similar cities around the world. But for now, this current plan needs to be approved. The alternative is not a pretty future at all.