However, lack of sufficient sources of funding, or reliance on sources that are too variable, or the ability of the state to divert funding sources away from the MTA arbitrarily, is an even bigger problem.

Yes, you can raise fares to make them an even larger portion of the total revenue. I believe that the demand elasticity of transit users is pretty small (subjective belief) at the current fare levels. However, this would amount to a very regressive tax and only makes sense if you believe that there are few or no positive externalities to transit.

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mta_vision_the_same_old_denial_5QN7n9wlo9HzXTnOKaALnN

“Here are some specifics. The MTA spends $6.4 billion a year on current-worker wages and benefits. A unionized city transit worker earns nearly $94,000 a year, including more than $26,000 in benefits. The unionized commuter-rail worker earns even more — well above $120,000.

“Nor is it just union jobs. The average white-collar worker at NYC Transit and Metro-North earns well above $120,000, too. And LIRR administrators beat them by a mile, topping $142,000 each. (Patronage, anyone?)”

Also, for everyone who complains about Unions (and no, I’m not a city worker, and no, I’m not allowed to form a Union at my job): A decent salary (‘living wage’) and good benefits is what we WANT. It’s what we should all be striving for. Don’t try to take away the good benefits others have achieved. Use them as an example for how things SHOULD be.

I don’t believe for one second that the MTA’s (or any public/semi-public agency for that matter) would cure their financial ills by taking away decent benefits and living wages. The general employees aren’t the problem. There are whole levels of project mismanagement and disorganization in the MTA and DOT, etc.

Don’t even get me started about the MTA – the misappropriation of funds (and BIG salaries for unqualified “personal secretaries”…) goes way up to the very top of MTA Capital Construction…

This can’t be resolved by breaking the systems apart however. It can only be resolved by pulling together greater political and economic forces in the interest of economic growth and community development.

There used to have to be at least a kernel of some kind of labor related critique in the body of the blog for the artillery volleys to commence. Now, even when you write a piece strictly concerning the behavior of two outer borough Democrats, neither favorites of TWU or any other MTA unions by the way, you still lead to a chorus of race-to-the-bottom, anti-labor hallelujahs.

$66,000 is not a shocking median income for NYC employers. Yes Larry is right, they make more on LIRR and more is owed on pensions. For only the waste of an hour it would be pretty easy to take apart most of this, but to what good effect?

How about this? This proposed shift in the payroll tax was the subject, deal with that, there is plenty to chew on, you will have plenty of future opportunities to whack the TWU, they aren’t going anywhere.

Neither, probably, is this legislation. It is however a clear shot-off-the-bow of an upcoming campaign for Governor. It is Patterson’s Nassau strategy. It may force Lazio to explain his position, compromised as it is by the history of suburban Republican control of the MTA (and the pension debt). And, more importantly, it is designed to pull Mr. Cuomo out of the bushes.

What would Andrew do?

Hate on the TWU all you want for protecting their members, it makes it much easier for the likes of Fidler, Kruger, Espada, and Diaz.

This is like one of those Ukranian Eggs made up of institutional scapegoats. The MTA is the big egg, it takes all of the blame for the political class. But inside of it is the TWU egg, it takes up all of the blame for the MTA. Kruger and Fidler aren’t inside the TWU egg.

If the MTA offers such good jobs, why don’t you go and take one up yourself?

How about cutting all MTA taxes outside NYC, using the residual to pay off the suburban share of debt and pension obligations from the past, and shutting down MetroNorth and the LIRR? I think the locals, even those who don’t commute to NYC, might eventually notice an effect on property taxes and local business activity.

And then, after a decade or two, perhaps new organizations could gradually restart the service.

The costs side has come to be dominated by the labor costs, but no state politician is going to go head to head against the TWU. It would be almost guaranteed political suicide, and there is a good chance it would not do much to control costs as the TWU has shown their willingness to strike over far less than the types of cuts needed today.

The only real hope I can see to control labor costs is to force the MTA into bankruptcy/restructuring. This would allow the agency to pay less than the full value of all the pension and other benefits that it is now funding, and to negotiate an entirely new contract with labor. This is the “nuclear option”, but I don’t see any other way for it to happen. Maybe that is the secret game plan in the legislature.

Regarding revenue, I thought this mobility tax was a bad idea when it first came out, and even worse now that it is tiered to tax the city more heavily than the suburbs. A tax that increases the marginal cost of employing people will raise some revenue, and result in fewer jobs at the margin. Compare that with a tax on driving or road usage, such as some kind of bridge toll or congestion charge, which would raise some revenue and result in fewer or shorter car trips at the margin.
Skewing the tax so that businesses within the city pay a higher rate than the surrounding counties just adds another layer of distortion with lots of poential for unintended consequences.

I agree with Bloomberg on this one: bad economics.

You fail to note that transit workers in the suburbs are paid far more than TWU workers, as are teachers and police officers — one reason NYC’s state aid is being cut more. We could close more of the gap by having TWU members take jobs on the LIRR.

It is also the case that the best paid NYC local government workers were long ago permitted to move to the suburbs — by state law. A large share of them live there. Less well paid employees of the City of New York recently followed.

Governemnt employment and payroll account for a far larger share of total employment in payroll in the suburbs than in the city. So the state legislators are not about to allow the MTA to “hire tens of thousands of out-of-work New Yorkers to take their place at the same salary but without all the crazy benefits.” Or hire New Yorkers at all. Among younger generations, New Yorkers tend not to get any benefits at all.