It could happen again soon. Graphic: Carly Clark/Streetsblog

Paterson has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t want to pass the current deficit on to the new administration. “That $315 million needs to be balanced so that the new governor can start on January 1 only dealing with a $9 billion deficit and not any surplus that came from the 2010-2011 budget negotiations,” said Paterson in a joint press conference held with Cuomo yesterday.

So far, the current legislature has rejected calls for a special session to deal with the deficit and other Paterson priorities. But at the joint presser, Cuomo added his voice to Paterson’s, urging the legislature to fix that $315 million hole before he takes office. “If Governor Paterson leaves a shortfall on the table, it rolls forward to next year and what is already an impossible year with a $9 billion deficit, give or take,” said Cuomo. “So if Governor Paterson were to compound next year, that would not be responsible.”

That adds some political muscle to Paterson’s request. Paterson is a lame duck, but legislative leaders are going to have to deal with Cuomo moving forward. Rejecting Cuomo’s call for a special session before January would start Sheldon Silver and John Sampson off on the wrong foot with the incoming governor.

Paterson has proposed closing the $315 million shortfall with a mechanism similar to what the state used earlier this year to make up for a shortfall in federal Medicaid payments. By instituting an across-the-board cut of 1.1 percent to all state programs, that maneuver stripped the MTA of $16.7 million in dedicated revenue. If this new spending cut mechanism is organized the same way, it would cost the MTA another $18.7 million. If legislators don’t exempt revenue from the MTA payroll tax, which they spared before, the impact on transit could be about twice as big. Transit advocates and City Council transportation chair Jimmy Vacca have warned state leaders not to hit transit again.

If the state does raid the MTA to plug the current budget gap, it could foreshadow even worse news for straphangers. Any damage inflicted to the MTA’s finances by this $315 million state deficit pales in comparison to the potential trainwreck of next year’s budget, in which the state is currently $9 billion short.

Under New York's smart growth law, will state agencies continue to subsidize projects like the reconstruction of Rochester's South Avenue Garage? Photo: Travelin' Librarian/Flickr

Governor David Paterson announced Tuesday that he had signed Assembly Member Sam Hoyt’s Smart Growth Infrastructure Public Policy Act, making it the law of the land that all state infrastructure spending must comply with a set of smart growth principles, including fostering compact, mixed-use development and reducing dependence on the automobile.

Paterson’s approval has been expected since the bill passed the legislature in June. The next six months will help determine how big a difference the governor’s signature will make.

Important precedents will be set in the waning days of the Paterson administration, said Peter Fleischer, who directs Empire State Future, a statewide smart growth coalition. The administration needs to take an active role in developing smart growth implementation policies at the highest levels, he said.

“We want Paterson’s economic people there, his environmental people there, and we want Paul Beyer of the Smart Growth Cabinet there,” said Fleischer. The governor’s Smart Growth Cabinet, which Beyer manages, brings together state officials to coordinate policy across departments.

Fleischer identified the departments where the smart growth law should have the biggest effect, singling out Empire State Development; the Department of Transportation; the Environmental Facilities Corporation, which helps build water and sewer infrastructure across the state; the Dormitory Authority and the Power Authority (in charge of financing and constructing colleges, courts and health care facilities, and providing low cost electricity from the state’s hydro, gas, and oil power plants, respectively). The departments that matter are “any of the big agencies with money who have discretion over where they spend it,” he explained.

Empire State Development and the Dormitory Authority put up the $12.2 million that the state spent to subsidize the reconstruction of the 1,651-space garage that re-opened in downtown Rochester last week.

Of course, the Paterson Administration won’t be around much longer, and a new governor will also have to put his stamp on the law’s implementation. Empire State Future has reached out to each candidate’s campaign and urged them to develop a policy on sustainable development and promise to appoint smart growth commissioners. “A Governor Cuomo who wants to make infrastructure spending meaningful can really do so,” said Fleischer.

In the long-term, though, the next step might turn back from the Executive Mansion to the legislature. Fleischer said that his organization is beginning to look at introducing a New York version of California’s landmark anti-sprawl bill, SB 375. That bill aligned the state’s transportation and housing plans with its environmental law and required each region to meet transportation-sector greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng were killed when a van left idling and unattended careened backwards into a group of pre-schoolers on a Chinatown sidewalk. The driver was not charged.

One reason prosecutors hesitate to bring charges is that the standards for proving criminal negligence or recklessness can be difficult to meet. Hayley and Diego's Law, sponsored by Dan Squadron in the State Senate and Brian Kavanagh in the Assembly, creates an intermediate charge -- a traffic violation called careless driving -- which prosecutors can use in cases where criminal convictions seem unlikely. Motorists found guilty of careless driving will have to complete a driver education course and face fines up to $750, jail time up to 15 days, and license suspensions up to six months -- or a year for repeat offenders.

"We expect that the NYPD and District Attorneys are always looking at all the different options to hold people accountable for actions that lead to injuries and deaths," said Transportation Alternatives' senior policy advisor Peter Goldwasser. "With this law, we expect that they will be able to do that to an even greater degree and create a deterrent effect."

Joseph McCormack, chief of the Vehicular Crimes Bureau at the Bronx District Attorney's office, said he would have applied the careless driving charge to Randolph Belle, the motorist who executed an illegal U-Turn on West Kingsbridge Road last week, causing a livery cab driver to veer into a bus shelter, killing one person and severely injuring several others.

McCormack decided not to press charges based on a 2008 case, People v. McGrantham, in which the Court of Appeals -- the highest court in New York state -- ruled that limousine driver James McGrantham was not guilty of criminal negligence after he entered the Belt Parkway at night going the wrong direction, then executed a U-Turn in the middle of the highway instead of pulling over outside the flow of traffic to correct course. A motorcyclist coming around a curve crashed into the limo and died.

Paterson signed a second law on Friday that should also keep dangerous drivers off the road. Under Elle’s Law, any driver who causes serious physical injury to another person while committing a traffic violation will automatically have his or her license suspended for a period of six months by the DMV. Drivers who have been involved in any similar incidents within the previous five years will have their licenses suspended for a full year.

Upper East Side representative Micah Kellner introduced the bill after Elle Vanderberghe, 3 years old at the time, suffered serious brain injuries when a motorist backed up through a crosswalk on 82nd Street to grab an open parking space. "I think a lot of folks want to believe that our streets are safe, but they're clearly not," said Kellner. "One thing we need to make clear is that driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you're going to endanger the public welfare, we're going to take that privilege away from you."

Together, Elle's Law and Hayley and Diego's Law should result in more consistent revocation of driving privileges after people commit dangerous acts behind the wheel. And while the system of license suspensions in New York suffers from a revolving door problem, the new laws may lead to suspensions that carry greater consequences. A Court of Appeals ruling earlier this year, in People v. Caban, holds that driving with a suspended license can be used as evidence of criminal negligence, if the suspension was due to unsafe driving.

It will take years to assess the full impact of Hayley and Diego's Law, but a similar law that passed in Oregon a few years ago should give New Yorkers a good idea of the challenges to expect.

The Oregon statute differs from Hayley and Diego's Law in that the officer has to actively determine that someone was driving carelessly, said attorney Bob Mionske, who writes the Road Rights column for Bicycling Magazine. Under New York's law, there's a presumption that the driver was at fault in some crashes. "It shifts the burden," said Mionske. "You're sort of on the cutting edge in New York."

Despite its differences, Oregon's vulnerable users law remains the closest comparison to New York's. "Here, it's made a big difference," argued Ray Thomas, another bike lawyer. "The options are so limited in terms of what can be done in most cases," he said. Another infraction adds to the enforcement toolkit. He pointed to the high-publicity case of a Portland bus driver who hit five pedestrians in a crosswalk, killing two; the driver was prosecuted under the vulnerable users law.

Thomas admitted, though, that the state law hasn't shown equal benefit everywhere in Oregon. Though prominent in Portland, said Thomas, "across the state, law enforcement has been slow or reluctant to use it." He attributed the uneven application to two things that many police departments and district attorneys want to avoid: "New thinking and more work."

The Oregon law also hasn't penetrated public perception very widely. Estimating how many Oregonians were aware of the law, Mionske guessed "less than 3 percent, and they're the ones already in the choir." Comparing careless driving to drunk driving, Mionske said that there will be a real deterrent effect when law enforcement and advocates join forces to create "a ripple of fear through the driving community." That hasn't happened with the vulnerable users law, yet. 

What both Mionske and Thomas implied is that once legislation like Hayley and Diego's Law goes into effect, law enforcement needs to buy into it. Then, in each city and town, the enforcement effort must be accompanied by a coordinated campaign to inform people of the new consequences of careless driving.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer at a rally for Hayley and Diego's Law last month. Photo: Noah Kazis

Last week, the Assembly officially presented the bill to Governor Paterson, setting in a motion a 10-day countdown that ends this Friday. If Paterson signs it, the bill becomes law. If he ignores it, the bill also becomes law once the countdown expires. The governor would have to veto the bill, overturning a 38-23 vote in the State Senate and a 137-0 vote in the Assembly, to prevent it from becoming law.

We have a request in with the Governor's office to see where he stands.

If the bill clears this final hurdle, the next question is how police and prosecutors will adjust. By defining the offense of "careless driving," the law should lessen the apparent reluctance of law enforcement to charge drivers who maim and kill on crowded city streets.

If New York were allowed to install bus lane enforcement cams, bus riders wouldn't be slowed so much by illegally parked delivery trucks.

New York can't install bus lane cameras without authorization from Albany. So far, the legislature hasn't bestowed it, despite wide-ranging support. Two years ago, Assembly transportation commmittee chair David Gantt killed an earlier version of bus camera legislation, leaving New York City bus riders stuck in traffic. 

The new budget amendment would actually be an improvement over that bill. The old legislation limited bus-mounted cameras to the city's five Select Bus Service routes, while the current version allows camera enforcement on up to 50 miles of bus routes -- exactly the length of the city's current bus lane network. "It's saying that all bus lanes are important, in every borough," said Lindsey Lusher Shute, Transportation Alternatives' director of environmental campaigns.

The cameras would either be stationary or mounted on buses, recording the license plates of motorists parked or driving in bus lanes. Fines would be set at a maximum of $125.

Camera enforcement would be a real game-changer for bus riders. Dedicated lanes can mean much faster trips, but in New York, all sorts of other vehicles constantly violate bus lanes. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's office conducted a study last summer which found more than 350 vehicles parked in Midtown bus lanes over a 40 hour period. The police, meanwhile, are at best too thinly stretched to spend sufficient manpower on keeping bus lanes clear, and at worst they're the source of the problem.

Because NYCDOT and the MTA appear loath to install physically separated lanes for their big-ticket bus improvements on First and Second Avenues, camera enforcement will be critical to achieving better performance. 

"The most effective way to provide faster and more reliable bus service is to enforce bus lanes by cameras," said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign. "Sporadic and limited ticketing by police just doesn't keep bus lanes moving, free of illegally stopped cars." 

For the bus camera legislation to emerge intact from the budget process, both the Assembly and the State Senate will also need to include it in their budgets, which are expected to be released in about three weeks. The Senate is fairly likely to include bus cameras in its budget, said Shute, so the question is whether Gantt will keep it in the Assembly version.

If not, bus camera legislation would have to be passed as a stand-alone bill. Assembly Member Jonathan Bing is already sponsoring one such bill. Advocates will be in Albany on Wednesday, making the case for cameras.

Photo: Times-Union

With Governor Paterson's political career flaming out in spectacular fashion, speculation is rampant that he might step down any day, thrusting Richard Ravitch into New York state's executive office.

Ravitch would inherit a budget crisis of epic proportions and a state capital that was already in utter disarray. The potential succession would also elevate a former MTA chair with no future political ambitions, at a time when transit funding is in dire straits and no one in Albany seems inclined to face up to the problem.

Consider this an open thread for predictions on how the next few weeks and months will play out in Albany. I'm dying to see who's going to be Ravitch's lieutenant governor.

Perhaps the "Mobility Tax" should be renamed in honor of Lew Fidler and Carl Kruger.

Despite the fact that the MTA's commuter rail lines, which keep suburban roads from turning into parking lots, are already more heavily subsidized than the subway, we are poised to enact a policy that will lessen the burden on the suburbs and hit the core of the region's economy the hardest.

Are bridge tolls or congestion pricing an option right now? The window to prevent this particular transit catastrophe by putting a price on wasteful driving probably isn't open any longer -- the revenue stream couldn't start flowing fast enough to balance the MTA's books. And the fact is, the same State Senate crew who killed bridge tolls last spring is still in power, and we're nine months closer to election day.

So think of the New York City payroll tax hike, if it comes to pass, as a testament to the obstinacy of Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada, Ruben Diaz, Sr., and the disgraced Hiram Monserrate -- as well as their GOP counterparts like Marty Golden and Andrew Lanza who sat idly by and did nothing to help the Ravitch plan last year.

Nine months after these NYC-based State Senators killed bridge tolls and nearly two years after members of the city's Assembly delegation stopped congestion pricing in its tracks, we now face the distinct possibility that NYC businesses will end up shouldering more than three times the payroll tax rate as suburban businesses. Think back to all the city politicians you've heard float make-believe proposals about reinstating the commuter tax or making only non-NYC motorists pay bridge tolls. This new tax on New York City -- on their constituents -- is their handiwork too.

Photo: Scientific American

The eleven governors, including New York's David Paterson, vowed to develop a shared low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that would cut the total "life-cycle" emissions from transportation fuels. That measure would include the indirect environmental harm caused by biofuels' adverse land-use effects as well as the direct consequences of burning conventional gas.

The process is not going to be easy, or quick -- the states' pact mentions only that a "regional framework" for the standard would be established by 2011. But the governors' deal is a sign that amid uncertain prospects for congressional action on carbon emissions caps, states are emerging as laboratories for new approaches to curbing pollution.

Even an LCFS that allows fuel producers to select their own method of pollution reduction and measures emissions on a per-gallon basis, as recommended by the Union of Concerned Scientists, would not be a substitute for climate legislation that seeks to put a fair price on carbon.

What an LCFS can do is put electrified rail and other forms of transit on a more competitive footing by encouraging gas and diesel prices that reflect the full environmental toll taken by the burning of fossil fuels. As the California High Speed Rail Blog observed in its analysis of that state's LCFS -- which is expected to serve as a model for the eleven northeastern states:

Note that California’s new low carbon fuel standard does not aim to directly reduce total vehicle miles driven, nor to increase vehicle occupancy rates, nor to reduce aggregate net CO2 emissions from ground transportation in the state. Some or all of these outcomes may materialize indirectly as a result of higher vehicle and/or fuel prices.

"We'll look at it over the course of the next couple of months," said Kruger. ... "After that, we'll finish our vetting process, which hasn't even begun yet, and we'll have a better idea about the timetable (for a confirmation vote)."

When Liz Benjamin informed Kruger that Walder has already spoken of restoring public trust in the agency -- a task that will be much more difficult thanks to shameless hucksters like Kruger himself, the senator replied:

"I come from Missouri; don't show me, tell me. I mean, everybody says they're for oversight and accountability. What does that mean? What does it mean?"

I swear, this blog just writes itself sometimes.

While in London, Walder earned praise for putting the transit system on sound financial footing. (Note that the city's congestion charge took effect in 2003, while he was finance director at TfL.) To do the same for the MTA, he has his work cut out for him. He assumes the chairmanship at a perilous time for the agency's finances. The state legislature's latest transit funding package left a huge hole in the MTA's capital program, a shortfall of at least $20 billion which Albany will have to address very soon.

"Jay Walder has the experience and credibility that the MTA will require to survive these challenging fiscal times," said RPA President Robert Yaro in a statement. "He'll need all of his many skills to navigate the roiled political waters in Albany."

Transit riders will be well-served if Walder can manage to drive the media narrative about the MTA more successfully than his predecessor, Lee Sander. It's a tall order. Casting aspersions on the MTA is a favored tactic for legislators looking to deflect blame for their own lack of leadership on transit policy, and the press corps often appears to serve as a willing accomplice. The riding public needs someone who not only manages the agency capably, but also shapes the MTA's public image as deftly as possible.

Photo: AP/Post-Standard

In politics, reputation matters. The scapegoating of the MTA has undermined the political case for transit funding and given cover to the hypocrites in Albany who blame the MTA, instead of themselves, for the agency's funding woes. Looking forward, it is critical that the MTA burnish its reputation as an effective and accountable public agency and excellent investment for public funds. There are many political forces that benefit from keeping the MTA as a scapegoat, its reputation besmirched. So, a clean bill of health for the MTA requires an unimpeachable, politically formidable force far above the gutter of the New York political fray. How about President Obama?

The president has spent enormous energy restoring public confidence in the banking system. A key part of his efforts has been the Treasury Department’s careful scrutiny of bank management and finances. Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson should ask President Obama to help restore public confidence in the MTA by ordering the Federal Transit Administration to send in a team of management, finance and policy experts. The MTA receives millions in federal support and the U.S. government has a strong interest in seeing that money well spent. The FTA team would definitively and publicly assess the state of the MTA, detailing both its good and bad management practices while clarifying and vetting agency finances.

Most transit experts believe the MTA is a relatively well run public agency which compares favorably with other big American and foreign transit systems. The agency’s biggest problem is that the state and city have spent the last two decades reducing their financial support, loading the agency with debt, and making it overly dependent on volatile, cyclical funding like the mortgage recording tax. The FTA's assessment would bring these facts to the fore and lay the political groundwork for a stronger case for transit funding.

Governor Paterson today accepted the resignation of MTA Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Elliot G. Sander. Mr. Sander offered his resignation to the Governor earlier this year in anticipation of yesterday's passage of legislation that joins the Chairman and CEO positions at the MTA. Mr. Sander's resignation is effective May 22, 2009, ending a tenure that began January 1, 2007.

It's no surprise that Sander would be sacrificed, as rumors had been circulating for months that Governor Paterson was looking for a change. Regardless of Sander's achievements during his two-year tenure, WNYC is reporting that Paterson earlier today announced the need for a "leadership shake-up" due to the public's lack of confidence in the agency.

Despite the feckless performance of Paterson and his Albany cohorts during the doomsday debacle, and the short-sighted deal that resulted, we assume the governor managed to keep a straight face.

Follow the jump for the rest of the MTA release.

MTA Executive Director and CEO Elliot G. Sander said: "It has been a great honor to lead the 70,000 hard-working men and women who run the world's greatest public transportation system. I am tremendously proud of our accomplishments making the MTA a leaner, more efficient and effective organization. Each of the MTA's agencies is performing at peak levels, the relationship with our employees is dramatically improved and we communicate more frequently with our customers. The integration of the MTA's three bus companies, the merging of back office functions across 7 agencies and the introduction of line general managers on the subway system will save the MTA millions and improve the agency's performance. New innovations like rider report cards, text message alerts and Select Bus Service have improved the customer experience. There is more work to be done, but I leave confident knowing the MTA is headed in the right direction. I am grateful to Governor Paterson and Governor Spitzer for this wonderful opportunity. I wish Governor Paterson the best of luck in choosing a successor who will build on the progress the MTA has made over the past two and a half years." 

Now that Governor Paterson has backtracked on his pledge to secure a long-term solution to New York's transit funding crisis, the push is on to spin the slapdash result as a responsible outcome, not a capitulation to Albany's lowest common denominator.

Courtesy of Liz Benjamin, here's Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith emerging from last night's closed-door session with the two Long Island legislators who will presumably give him the 32 votes needed to pass a bill:

I think it is a tribute to them, and a tribute to this Democratic conference. Reform is what everybody wanted. Everybody said that you should have a legislature where the rank-and-file members have a right to speak their mind, and have input -- and not only have input but get some results.

Never mind that all the negotiating for this deal took place behind closed doors. Or that the plan Smith's conference concocted does not reduce the MTA's dependence on debt financing. Or that the band of senators who derailed the viable plan drawn up by the Ravitch Commission are the same group who held the Democratic takeover of the Senate hostage last year, in return for more lucrative and powerful committee chairmanships.

Sure, rank-and-file legislators need a more open, transparent process in Albany, but letting the Fare Hike Four dictate the agenda hardly qualifies as reform, or sound policymaking.

Fortunately, the city's editorial boards aren't buying it. The Times, the Daily News, and the Post unanimously slammed the framework that Smith, Paterson, and, one assumes, Sheldon Silver will now sign off on, because it doesn't fund the MTA capital plan -- the vital maintenance and improvements necessary to the transit system's long-term health.

Under the Ravitch framework, the payroll tax would have funded those long-term investments, and car commuters would have helped to plug the MTA's operating deficit through bridge tolls. The Smith/Paterson framework uses the payroll tax to plug the deficit, asks nothing of car commuters (who benefit enormously from a robust transit network), and leaves the capital plan unfunded.

Our transit system risks collapse, in other words, because Albany can't muster the will to charge drivers. That is the core storyline in the ongoing MTA funding saga -- not "reform" -- and it has to change.

As discussions for a permanent funding plan for the MTA continue, stop-gap measures that kick the big problems down the road must be rejected. For any plan to truly meet the needs of the metropolitan region’s people and our economy, it must include stable, reliable funding for capital projects.  Our transportation infrastructure is aging, and expansion projects are absolutely critical to keep New York City and the surrounding counties moving forward. We must invest in the system, even during economically difficult times, or buses, railcars, stations, signals and tracks will fall into disrepair and commuters will suffer -- just as happened in the 1970s.

There is no painless option, but the issues will be no simpler a few months from now than they are today, which is why Albany must find a permanent stream of funding for capital projects -- not next fall, but right now.

I called the mayor's press office, and they don't appear ready to get more specific than this. It's fairly clear, however, that Bloomberg does not approve of Governor Paterson's new direction.

He also raises a good point about timing. With contractors competing intensely during the recession, state DOTs across the country are getting deep discounts on stimulus-funded road projects. Shouldn't New York City's transit system get in on the construction bargains while we have the chance?

If you want to pass that message on to our leaders in Albany, follow the jump for some key email addresses.

• To contact Governor David Paterson: governor@chamber.state.ny.us
• To contact Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver: Speaker@assembly.us.state.ny.us
• To contact Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith: masmith@senate.state.ny.us
• To contact Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Martin Dilan: dilan@senate.state.ny.us
  

Seeking a quick resolution to the MTA funding crisis, Governor Paterson lobbied over the weekend to get a Band-aid fix through the State Senate. The problem is, Paterson's plan provides no resolution at all. Fundamental details of the proposal are still sketchy, even as the governor pushes for a vote as soon as today, but there's no doubt that the numbers don't add up to a healthy transit system. Consider:

• The revenue streams in Paterson's plan keep shrinking while the MTA's operating deficit keeps growing, meaning that further fare hikes and service cuts will be necessary in a matter of months.
  
• All indications are that the latest proposal would direct zero dollars to the MTA capital plan, the five-year package of maintenance and expansion projects that is still completely unfunded.
  

By pushing for a stopgap measure on the Senate Democrats' terms, Paterson has effectively abandoned the framework laid out by the Ravitch Commission. His proposal does not share the funding burden equitably -- car commuters pay nothing to keep congestion-busting trains and buses running. Nor does it address long-term funding needs, risking system-wide decline by leaving even routine maintenance unpaid for.

Observers are in the dark about the most basic aspects of the governor's proposal, like how much it would raise in total. Does the plan still fund upstate roads and bridges with a surcharge on New York City cab fares? Will service cuts still be necessary even if this plan passes? It's hard to tell when all the discussions take place behind closed doors.

Advocates aren't pleased. The Empire State Transportation Alliance -- a coalition representing business, labor, and environmental groups -- released a statement yesterday stressing the importance of funding the MTA capital plan now, not just passing a temporary fix. 

"In light of what has transpired as well as what has failed to happen to date, we have little confidence that the Governor and Legislature will be able to come together to address the urgent capital needs of the MTA once such a band-aid is applied," said ESTA co-chair Kevin Corbett in a statement.

Delaying action on the capital plan will also affect transit service down the line, because debt payments come out of the MTA's operating budget. "The two are very closely related," RPA's Neysa Pranger told Streetsblog. "A good part of the reason they're in the operating deficit now is that they had to borrow to pay for the capital plan. By 2012, debt service will eat up 20 percent of the MTA's operating budget. If you don't do the capital piece now, you run the risk of driving the system into the ground, or the MTA continues to borrow a lot of money which puts additional pressure on fares and service. It's all part of the same picture."

Politically, passing a sound plan will only get tougher from here on out, as the 2010 elections draw closer. "The MTA will be very constrained by the election cycle," said Pranger, noting that the agency will soon have another budget shortfall on its hands, but the money to cover it probably won't come from fare hikes. "It's happened before, Pataki would give the MTA these one-shots -- payments out of the general fund. The legislature has got to be wary of the fuzzy math right now, and demand some answers about where the money's going, before voting on anything."

MTA CEO Lee Sander, MTA Board Chair Dale Hemmerdinger, and Governor Paterson at a March press conference.

Well, now it's the governor himself who's left everyone in the dark. He's been dropping hints for days that he has some plan that will win enough votes to clear the Senate, giving no specifics. This is ominous, to say the least. And it makes all those Paterson barbs about statehouse dysfunction seem like so much hypocrisy.

The leaks that have dripped out so far don't inspire confidence in the governor. Desperate for some development that he can claim as a victory, might he opt for "Deferred Armageddon" -- financing even the MTA's day-to-day operations with borrowed money? If so, the doomsday disaster unfolding today would pale in comparison to what such a plan would set in motion, as more and more of the MTA's budget gets swallowed up by debt payments. Sounds crazy, right? It also sounds like the kind of "plan" that someone itching for a comeback in the polls would try to keep under wraps as long as possible. 

A year ago, Paterson signaled that he was serious about putting the transit system on solid footing when he chose Richard Ravitch to head the commission on MTA financing. When Ravitch's commission unveiled its proposals last November, Paterson said, "The ways in which responsibility may have been shirked, or ignored, in the past, to live for another day -- that day has come, and we're going to have to make those tough choices."

Now is no time to walk away from that commitment.

The governor's "new" solution is to cave to the Senate Dems.

According to multiple reports, Paterson is prepared to accept the framework laid out by Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, and dilute the proposed revenue streams even further by granting some payroll tax exemptions and halving the surcharge on cab fares.

How it all adds up to a healthy transit system is a complete mystery. Even without the watered down provisions, the plan on the table in the Senate only generates $1.76 billion per year. That sum was supposed to cover the MTA operating deficit, its five-year capital plan, and a five-year road and bridge program for all of New York State. Well, now we know that it will take more money than that -- $1.8 billion -- just to keep the trains and buses running. So what's it going to be?

One option -- let's call it "Armageddon" -- would be to spend all the revenue to plug the MTA operating deficit. No money for maintenance or expansion. The system spirals into 1970s-style decrepitude and the region's economy goes in the tank for the foreseeable future.

Another path -- how about "Deferred Armageddon" -- puts it all on a giant credit card. The MTA capital plan, roads and bridges, AND transit service. Bond every cent of the new revenue streams and borrow to pay for everything -- even the day-to-day operations of the MTA. Taxes and fees collected in the MTA service region pay for the whole state's transportation system, and in five years, we face the mother of all transit crises. (The Post thinks this is where we're headed.)

There are other ways to go about funding transportation, of course. We could ask downstate car commuters to pay into the system that keeps traffic from totally clogging up New York City streets. We could ask upstate drivers to pay for roads and bridges through higher vehicles fees and gas taxes. Assuming that Republicans in the State Senate would bargain in good faith, these solutions are politically feasible.

I haven't even reached the scariest part of Paterson's recent pronouncements, which is that he wants to vote on a rescue deal Monday. With Mayor Bloomberg's staff deeply involved in negotiations with the State Senate, the endgame could very well play out over the weekend. Is that how the most important transportation policy in New York State will get resolved -- while no one is paying attention to the news, and Pedro Espada, Ruben Diaz, Sr., and Hiram Monserrate enjoy sunny Puerto Rico?

Photo: Brad Aaron

While making the seemingly obvious argument that maintaining a healthy transit system is vital to the region's economy, the piece (behind the Crain's pay wall) lays blame on the Pataki administration -- during which Shaw previously served as MTA CEO -- for having "loaded up the MTA with debt that’s now coming home to roost."

[Sander] has become a target for those who believe the MTA is bloated and wasteful. In truth, Mr. Sander has wisely streamlined operations and cut costs in his two years in the post. He hasn’t solved all of the MTA’s problems. Who could in such a short time? And he hasn’t been the most effective politician in selling what he has done. But is that really a fault? Shouldn’t the job go to a seasoned transportation professional rather than a politician?

We asked MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan about cost-cutting measures initiated under Sander. The list is pretty extensive. Donovan points to the following efficiencies imposed "even as demand is at levels not seen since the early 1950s": elimination of 410 administrative positions; establishment of Regional Bus Operations, merging three companies into one; creation of a Business Service Center to "consolidate duplicative back office functions"; assignment of managers to oversee individual subway lines; formation of a blue-ribbon panel to "encourage competition and increase bidding on capital construction projects"; and increases in advertising revenue "from $38 million in 1997 to $125 million in 2008."

In addition, says Donovan:

Budget increases in recent years have come from uncontrollable factors like increases in debt service, which cost the MTA $793 million in 2002 and is projected to rise to $2.3 billion by 2012. But we are successfully trimming the expenses that we have control over. From 2004 to 2007, the MTA reduced its controllable costs by five percent. Building on that reduction, Lee Sander called on the MTA and its agencies to cut our budgets by six percent over four years. As the economic picture has darkened, he accelerated that six percent cut so that it is now required to take place over three years instead of four. All told, these cuts will result in a cumulative 11 percent budget cut.

Crain's editors also called on local business leaders -- Republicans in particular -- as well as the Real Estate Board of New York, to get behind the "fair and equitable" Ravitch plan to bolster MTA finances.

Do the likes of, say, Carl Kruger, care about Sander's streamlining efforts as long as they can continue to cast the MTA as the villain of the funding debacle?

At a meeting later in the afternoon with Mr. Paterson, a group of senators from suburban districts told him they would not support the payroll tax.

The senators were Craig M. Johnson of Nassau County, Brian X. Foley of Suffolk County, and Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Suzi Oppenheimer, both of Westchester County.

"I’m very uncomfortable with the proposed payroll tax," Mr. Foley said later in an interview. "Suffolk County is in the outer ring of the service area. Our businesses would be paying into a system that they don’t get much out of."

Both the Times and Daily News point out that opposition to the payroll tax is not unexpected. Now that it's out in the open, however, lawmakers are reportedly scrambling, with Sheldon Silver suggesting that a "little time out would be helpful." Before the breakdown, everything from higher vehicle registration fees to a 50-cent cab surcharge was said to be under consideration.

Amid the chaos, one thing appears certain. Said a spokesman for Malcolm Smith to the Times: "Everything [is] still on the table 'except tolls.'"

Photo: The Politicker

David Paterson, legislative leaders and top staffers just emerged from a 90-minute meeting on an M.T.A. bailout package and declared that it will not include bridge tolls.

"The framework I see is that the Senate has really eliminated what my choice would be, which would be to have the tolls. If that's the case, then we're going to have to try to find alternative ways to come up with several hundred million dollars that would replace what would have been the revenues generated by the tolls," said David Paterson, who made a rare appearance at a press scrum outside his second-floor office.

The possible alternatives Paterson spoke of include a gasoline tax, increased automobile registration fees and parking fees -- though Paterson said he considered a gas tax hike "out of the question." 

For his part, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver characterized the still-secret plan as a righteous rebuke of last week's MTA board vote to raise fares and cut service -- which state lawmakers failed to prevent despite years of warnings. Said Silver:

"I think what's most important is we're dealing with the one thing the three of us agree [on]—the actions of the M.T.A. board cannot be allowed to stand. We have to get together and provide the revenue and ensure these 31-percent fare hikes do not stand."

Now that Shelly's own $2 toll plan has succumbed without ever coming up for a vote: New York State Legislature, what are you smoking?