It's time, said Richard Ravitch, to end the cyclical “political circus.”
He was referring to the periodic explosion of crises that make office holders, politicians and, ultimately, strap hangers gnash their teeth as another fare increase has to be enacted, service declines and threats of new calamities in the form of more service cuts loom.
Often, it becomes an exercise in finger pointing as each group tries to blame the other for the latest disruption in our lives.
Ravitch, an intense, brilliant public servant who was an early chairman of the MTA, is deeply devoted to the institution he helped create. He wants to save it and improve it. His motivation is strong.
Governor Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg seem to like much of what the new Ravitch Commission recommends to save the subway, bus and commuter railroad system. They listened respectfully as Ravitch outlined the rescue plan for the MTA.
Under that plan, the state would impose a new “mobility tax” on corporate payrolls in the region; tolls would be placed on East River and Harlem River bridges, the fare increase would be much lower than the one the MTA originally proposed. There would be fewer service reductions.
The regional mobility tax -- 33 cents for every $100 of payroll -- would yield $1.5 billion a year and the bridge tolls would bring in $600 million in net revenue. Ultimately, these new streams of revenue, Ravitch said, would help finance a capital or construction program of approximately $35 billion.
Gene Russianoff, a vigorous critic of the MTA for many years, liked the Ravitch plan because it was asking all who benefit from metropolitan transit -- riders, drivers and businesses -- to contribute to its maintenance. In 2008, he said, the network of subways, buses and commuter lines “can keep New York livable and get us out of recession.”
He has some misgivings, though, about a proposed regional bus authority, warning that this body would have to safeguard employees and passengers against “harmful cuts” made in the name of eliminating “duplicate service.”
Paterson said: “This is open to negotiation. We're going to need both houses of the Legislature to cooperate with us. But I must reiterate to everyone here, these are tough times, and difficult choices will have to be made---by legislators, by executives and even by the riders…with respect to the MTA.”
As for the Legislature, which must sign on to this program, I asked Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a frequent critic of the MTA, for his reaction.
He praised Ravitch for being a “smart, tough guy” who was “trying to do the right thing.” Was this the right thing? The assemblyman said he and other legislators would have to think about that, reading the plan carefully and analyzing it. He reserved decision on whether or not he would favor these recommendations.
Missing from much of the early discussion of the Ravitch plan is any expression of serious concern for the little guy who pays the fare. He or she contributes more than anyone to the operation of the system.
On the New York Times Web site, commenting on the situation, someone called “Fedup” wrote: “There has to be another solution to service cuts and East River tolls. NYC [is] starting to remind me of a dictatorship.”
And a person named “Kissel” said: “Is it just too much to ask for them to actually trim the enormous fat from the MTA [reduce the enormous payroll and pension costs] and to actually automate the system like almost every other major metro rail system?'' Tom says: ''Labor and pension expenses are a central factor in the MTA's economic problems. Current proposed fixes are all very temporary and will not restore long term health…”
Overshadowing everything, of course, is the economy.
It's the worst of times to impose new financial burdens on those least able to afford them. Will some struggling families have to choose between paying a higher fare to get to work and putting sufficient food on the table? Will some of us face other grim choices in the year to come? It would seem that the burden of the MTA's financial crisis must be shared according to the ability to pay.
We need to protect the most vulnerable among us.
