Comments on: Fare Hike 2010: Your Chance to Prop Up Albany

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:38:56 +0000

Okay, I’m trying to find these numbers in the budget documents, and I’m having a difficult time. I’ve found that the “amount taken from MMTOA fund” column in Table 2 of the Comptroller’s report corresponds roughly to the “18-b adjustment” in the MTA budget documents, but only for certain years. I can’t find anything that corresponds to the “18-b Total” or “Amount from the General Fund” columns. This stuff is very well hidden.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:30:45 +0000

If Albany contributes virtually nothing to the MTA, and is actually a net drain, why should the MTA continue to be a state agency? Maybe the MTA should be independent and self-supporting.

By: Ben Fried

Ben Fried — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:44:46 +0000

Cap’n — This post and the previous post use figures from the 2009-10 budget and the deficit reduction package that altered that budget last fall. And yes, the state’s contribution to the MTA, even before this theft, was truly paltry.

These figures are from the state division of the budget:

Prior to enacting the deficit reduction package, Albany had committed all of $32 million from the general fund to the MTA’s $11.8 billion operating budget. Less than 0.3 percent. (The $32 million was composed of $7 million in “18-B” operating support — the thin blue line in the graphic up top — and $25 million for student fares.)

After Albany took $143 million from the MTA in the DRP, the state became a net drain on the agency, withdrawing $111 million more than it had put in.

In the draft 2010-11 budget, Albany has supposedly committed $13 million in “18-B” operating support and $25 million for student fares. Again, about 0.3 percent of the total MTA operating budget. You could call it “peanuts,” but that’s not a great metaphor since peanuts are actually nourishing.

This report from former city comptroller Bill Thompson’s office shows how the state contribution to MTA operations has shrunk from “small” to virtually nothing over the last 10 years: [PDF].

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:12:58 +0000

Also, following Larry's line of argument, here is a post about successful pension reform, courtesy of Matt Yglesias.

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:01:20 +0000

So does this mean that, not including dedicated taxes, the State’s contribution to the MTA was down to $7 million before the budget? Can you tell us what it was last year?

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:24:21 +0000

If the dedicated MTA taxes are not dedicated, that means that people downstate pay higher taxes on the same incomes, spending or business earnings on people Upstate without anything extra.

That makes downstate workers and businesses the opposite of senior citizens.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:00:11 +0000

Start watching the media coverage of the MTA budget crises. Does the coverage make it clear that Albany actually does not fund transit from general tax revenue, the way it does say K-12 education and Medicaid? Probably not. The only way for Albany to “cut” transit funding is for it to steal it. You can’t “cut” funding you are not providing. The political game being played in Albany is to make it seem that transit is vying with K-12 and Medicaid for a share of the same funding pie. This creates the political rationale or “frame” for stealing transit funding from dedicated transit taxes.

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:02:33 +0000

I hate to say it, but the only reason NY woke up and recognized their transit system was in the toilet in the 1980′s is because it was literally crime-ridden and crumbling. What a shame it would be if MTA has to let it get to that state again in order for NY to wake up again. Aren’t massive fare increases and service cuts enough?

By: J:Lai

J:Lai — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:53:56 +0000

The MTA board doesn’t care about public opinion, so they don’t bother to refute the rhetoric coming out of Albany.

The legislature can keep diverting attention by pointing at inefficiency and waste in the MTA budget – why give them more money when they will only use it to pay inflated salaries, etc?

Inefficiency in the budget, while important, is a second order problem. The lack of sufficient funding sources is the first order problem.

The legislature can continue to claim that the MTA can maintain service with less money by reducing waste, because there is no one at the MTA who cares to demonstrate otherwise.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:58:55 +0000

That graphic is the ultimate smoking gun. Wouldn’t it be great to see it on all the local news telecasts and all over the dailies? Or on posters in every subway station in the city?