I believe the MTA paid big bucks to Bear Stearns to generate funding in the face of falling tax contributions and fares relative to inflation. Bear Stearns recommended more borrowing. It seemed to have been a "genius" "everybody wins" move at the time, and not just at the MTA.

Does anyone else where follow the financial and economic world? We're facing a debt-driven economic disaster.

Among other things, government borrowing costs are soaring amidst a tax revenue meltdown.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNCGKKPXpS8w&refer=home

And, by the way, I checked out the MTA debt spreadsheet yesterday, and was shocked to find that much of the debt is variable rate. At least, I had thought, we can stop borrowing and not have to pay any more interest than we are already paying. WRONG.

i don't feel that i am expressing a laissez-faire attitude. i simply am establishing a cut off point on what drives my "guilty" verdict for the MTA and the fare hikes. while we may elect those who appoint the MTA officials, it is the job of hired consultants and what not (not mine or yours - unless you work in that capacity) to generate funding - a job at which i think they are faiing miserably. folks should still be allowed to have soem kind of saving, especially now, as an incentive to use mass transit rahter than cars or taxis.

i actually care very much about city expenditures (and environment!), but rather than taking out my opinions ineffectually in the voting booths, i have decided to make my personal statement by abandoning the subway and riding a bike.

Ah but PAST riders got their cut -- a fare that has fallen steeply relative to inflation, and even in nominal dollars, due to all the discounts. Notice that those discounts didn't matter until the MTA cut them back while retaining the $2.00 fare.

Glad to hear you have a laissez-faire attitude about how our city is financed, though: speaking for myself, as a taxpayer and a beneficiary of borrowing for capital projects, I eschew that "Santa puts the presents under the tree" kind of thinking when I'm paying in multiple ways for it.

honestly, i couldn't care less about the finer points. that is what the mta and its hacks are hired to worry about and really get straight in some way. why waste hot air between all of us parsing this out? i guess it just makes many out there feel really smart!

what i do care about and know is that:
1) fares go up, but the service remains rather similar or even gets worse (in different ways and places...) which means i and many others feel we are getting less bang for our hard earned buck
2) ny'ers are paying more than most other citizens to cover the transit expenses which makes me and many others feel the mta is not doing what it could to obtain revenue for its (mostly wasted cosmetic fixing) projects and general operations.

the bottom line is that the mta cretins have shown absolutely nothing but utter disdain for the citizens of NY. sure, NY is supposed to be a tough assed place and suffering through the hell of what measly service it has to offer is all part of the big apple experience, but, after spending almost all my life here i have just about had it with all the cynicism!

People just don't see what is coming. First of all, there is the next MTA capital plan. More importantly, real estate transfer taxes are going to tank, and the MTA will need huge money from the state just to avoid another fare hike later this year or in 2009.

My guess is they draw down all their cash to try to postpone the moment of reckoning until after the 2008 election. In a moment of crisis, the MTA Board will argue the riders have already anted up, but the city and state will suddenly be pushing tax increases and service cuts of their own.

Ah but PAST riders got their cut -- a fare that has fallen steeply relative to inflation, and even in nominal dollars, due to all the discounts. Notice that those discounts didn't matter until the MTA cut them back while retaining the $2.00 fare.

You can't criticize something for nothing greed, and pandering to something for nothing greed, and be just as greedy oneself. The lower fares in the face of rising wages and benefits were also paid for debt. The generational war, or perhaps the generational gang rape, is present in every aspect of every public policy decision.

As for Josh's comment: any even cursory review of the group's record would show that it has led the fight for adequate funding over and over again, in the face of much opposition from state and city leaders.

Obviously, given that the MTA did not immediately need the funds from a fare hike, the Straphangers group made a decision that the legislative angle was worth pushing. And given that the legislative position was in fact unprecedented, it was a smart position. Now, though, with the pressure off, the MTA has far less leverage to get more funding in Albany. Oh well -- there's always 2010.

The MTA and its riders and workers are victims of a bigger political fight in which more public money is going to health care and less to most everything else.

that said, i am SOOOOOOO glad i ride a bike 99% of the time anyway. have fun folks!

Hmmm. I wonder why Gene Russianoff and the Straphangers Campaign opposed the fare hike, then. Guess they were just playing around.

Anyone serious about improving mass transit knows that the MTA needs major new sources of revenue, not empty political promises. The fare increase is a call to arms. If Brodsky actually delivers on getting more (unborrowed) money to the MTA, then he will earn my respect. Until then he's just another politician looking for a free lunch (stolen from future transit riders).

Was Brodsky pandering? Maybe, even probably. But he is at this point probably one of the top five most powerful elected officials in the state, and I'd certainly rather have him on my side than against me, as we've seen on the congestion pricing front. Esp. when the proposal is a rip-off of transit riders, as the MTA's was.

I'll believe that a legislature wants to support transit when they actually vote increase taxes to pay for it (instead of borrowing or complaining). A legislator that says "trust me, we will fund you later (somehow) if you don't raise fares today" is exactly the ingenuous political moves that makes Albany politics stink.

Lee Sander made the right decision given the facts in hand - rising costs and no other real new sources of revenue.

When you do that interview with me I'll bring the statuette down to your district office.

where do I pick up my award?

Lew from Brooklyn

Keep up the great work, Streetsblog!