Between the Numbers

The Daily News is reporting that the MTA is considering a fare hike.

The MTA will put fare and toll hikes on the table next week in its preliminary 2008 budget but the agency won't cut services next year, sources said yesterday.

The preliminary budget envisions raising hundreds of millions of dollars by charging more for buses, subways, commuter trains and Metropolitan Transportation Authority bridges and tunnels.

Sources said the plan - to be unveiled at the MTA board's monthly meeting Wednesday - also envisions others sharing the burden of closing the gaps. It will call for administrative streamlining, better use of technology and increased revenues from state taxes.

The MTA earlier this year projected an $800 million budget gap for next year, rising to approximately $1.4 billion in 2009 and $1.8 billion the following year.

The preliminary plan will not specify increases in the various fare options - such as weekly unlimited-ride MetroCards and unlimited-ride monthly MetroCards. Instead, it will set a sum to be raised by fares and tolls.

The MTA adopts its budget in December. Officials have said a 5% increase would translate into $250 million for MTA operations. A 10% increase would reap $500 million.

For those who are already reeling over the possibility of seeing the cost of their daily commute skyrocket because the State is in the process of establishing a congestion pricing scheme, which would tax commuters heavily for the privilege of driving into Manhattan, this couldn't come at a worse time.

Expect to see proponents of the congestion pricing tax to latch on to the possibility of a fare hike as a way to say that unless the congestion pricing is implemented, the fares will rise.

This is a no-win situation for commuters and will further discourage people from living and working in the New York metro area because the costs of doing business continue to rise faster than incomes.

The MTA has to be absolutely clear and open with its books. If the fare hikes are needed, ensure that the money goes into service and maintenance of the system. There have long been problems with the MTA fudging its numbers, which has affected everything from fare discussions to union negotiations. We need the MTA to be straight with the public, and this is something that the State Comptroller ought to be able to look into to ensure that we're getting an accurate picture of the MTA fiscal situation.

UPDATE:
This confirms much of what I've been saying about congestion pricing for some time now. The Mayor was never being straight with the public over congestion pricing and what was required in order to qualify for the federal funds. If he was so assured that his congestion pricing scheme was on sound footing, why not open it up to debate if he'd win on the merits? Well, we know the reason - because the merits are debatable and the hard deadlines weren't so hard, and he was trying to skirt Legislative approval. Fred Lebrun writes:

Is this just another form of commuter tax that unfairly targets workers who have to drive to work from Long Island, Westchester and Rockland counties, and north Jersey? Is it true the the more economically disadvantaged would be affected disproportionately? What happens to traffic patterns, parking and residential life in the rest of Manhattan and the outlying areas beyond the pay-to-drive zone?

Is there a better way, or a combination of better ways, than congestion pricing?

Curiously, the drop-dead deadline this past Monday, to qualify for $500 million in federal aid supposedly assured by passing congestion pricing -- the stick Bloomberg tried unsuccessfully to use to bludgeon his opponents -- is indeed more flexible than we were told.

Just as Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky -- the latter an ardent critic of the Bloomberg plan -- told us. The federal deadline has been stretched, and so, it turns out, is what the feds will approve for the grant money.

Contrary to what Bloomberg led us to believe, the U.S. Department of Transportation will accept as qualifying for the $500 million grant a study commission leading toward some form of traffic abatement for downtown Manhattan. It doesn't have to be congestion pricing approval itself.

The Post takes a contrary view on this - noting that the idea of congestion pricing should not be essentially held hostage by Silver.

The congestion pricing plan has a worthy goal - reduce pollution and traffic, but Bloomberg's plan would have simply shifted those burdens on outlying areas who had no say on the plan, to say nothing of the New Jersey commuters who will continue to have no say at all.