M.T.A. Bill Gets Green Light From Legislative Leadership

Richard Ravitch is happy, Gene Russianoff is happy and the three men in the room are ecstatic over the fact they got something passed to help out the struggling M.T.A. Although Ravitch and Russianoff would have preferred something better, perhaps a little more comprehensive, they realize that in Albany, simply passing a bill, whether it does the job or not is a success. So with all this cheering, what can straphangers expect to find come June?

From The NY Times:

Under the deal, the base fare for a single bus or subway ride would rise to $2.25 from $2. The cost of a monthly MetroCard would probably rise to about $89 from $81, according to officials in the Legislature. Other fares and tolls, including tickets on the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, would go up about 10 percent.[...]

The legislative leaders also agreed to set a single rate for the payroll tax in all 12 counties served by the authority — a tax of 34 cents for every $100 of payroll. An earlier Senate version of the plan called for a lower rate in three outlying counties.

The payroll tax is expected to raise $1.53 billion a year.

The plan also includes a series of charges on vehicles and drivers in the 12- county region: a 50-cent surcharge on taxi rides, a $25 increase in vehicle registration fees, a 25 to 30 percent rise in drivers’ license fees and a 5 percent increase in a tax on car rentals. Those fees are expected to generate a total of $270 million a year.

So there you have it, the damage, so to speak is spread out amongst straphangers, drivers and employers, though more so on the employers. For a last minute maneuver, Silver, Smith and Paterson did a decent job. The only problem is that the M.T.A. is still going to consider another increase in a few months, so we'll see what the Legislature can do when the next deadline looms.

For now though, subway riders will have to pay a little more instead of a lot, drivers won't be tolled on East River bridges, taxi cab riders are only looking at a 50 cent surcharge instead of a dollar and service cuts will be avoided. For the next few months at least, doomsday has been averted.

Yet for some reason I can't get the thought out of my head that this was all some sort of psychological game played out before us. Drivers are still getting higher tolls where tolls exist and their fees are going up. Mass transit riders still have to pay more after an increase in the fare last year (those of us that buy weekly or monthly cards, which is for most New Yorkers), making the increase on a monthly between 2007 and now roughly 18%. Tolls have also risen at an astronomical rate. Then in 2011 and 2013 the fares will go up another 7.5% each time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these costs beat the rate of inflation, and at the same time we have a state government that passes bloated budgets every year.

Next year, instead of acting like pigs at a trough, perhaps our represenatives could get together and revamp the way the M.T.A. is funded, so that we do not have to face a crisis over fares whenever the economy sours. Relying on real estate and sales taxes is simply an unstable solution. When the Republicans were in charge, they probably realized this, but instead of remeding the situation, they tacked on more than a billion dollars in debt to the M.T.A. and magnified the problem. Instead of patting each other's backs over this quick fix, Smith, Silver and Paterson would do right by attacking the core of the problem and ensure that we continue to have the best mass transit system in the country for decades to come.

$2.50 Fare Is Just The Beginning

Much of the city is learning today that we will almost certainly be paying 25% or more for getting around on the subway by June. Service will also be cut, especially for bus lines and a few of the subway lines as well. Metro-North commuters are looking at a 30% hike as well. "Doomsday" is finally here. Oh and if this sounds bad, just wait until what happens next.

From StreetsBlog:

Without new financial help from Albany soon, the MTA says its current bad finances may mean another fare hike in 2010.

That would make it three years in a row for fare increases -- March 2008, June 2009 and early 2010 -- the worst record in the MTA's 40-plus year history.

It demonstrates a trend of shifting the costs of operating transit from some beneficiaries of the subways and buses -- such as motorists and businesses -- onto riders. For example, the riders' share of operating costs for the subways will go from 69% to an astonishing 84%, according to the MTA, if the just-approved fare increases are implemented.

Under the plan proposed by former MTA chairman Richard Ravitch, no new fare hike would occur before 2011.

That is Gene Russianoff talking, and trust me, when it comes to mass transit in New York, he knows his stuff. Of course, this is also common sense. If our leaders do not come up with a comprehensive plan to alleviate the debt load of the Authority, there is nowhere to go but down. Sadly, the new Democratic leadership has been behind in the message game and has let the Republican minority and few insurgents within the party own the debate:

Meanwhile, the excuses for inaction are pouring in. GOP State Senator Marty Golden, a Brooklyn rep who never broke ranks to support the Ravitch plan, sent around a press release blaming the state's top Democrats for "closing the doors completely to Republicans." Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos excused his party's monolithic opposition to the transit rescue effort in much the same way, and added that the MTA was asking for a "blank check" by seeking to fund its five-year capital program. As Liz Benjamin notes, that's exactly what the Fare Hike Four and Senate Dems have been saying.

It's a patently false claim. Any plan is subject to oversight and approval by the Capital Program Review Board. The leaders of the State Senate and the Assembly each appoint one voting member to the CPRB, as do the mayor and the governor. Any of the four voting members can veto the whole thing. Said Russianoff: "If they appropriated the money, they would still have power over how it's spent."

Why on Earth Smith is letting the Republicans and DINOs (Monserrate, Diaz, Kruger, Espada, etc) get away with lying to the people is infuriating. It just reinforces the fact that he is weak and unwilling to present real leadership in this difficult time. If only someone could step up and take over the show....perhaps place the DINOs in line and start winning the argument (because the truth is on our side) against our state's own version of the Party of No.

Debate At Baruch, The Pros And Cons Of Term Limits

While the NYC Bar Association condemned the Mayor today for trying to overturn term limits by legislative fiat, the term limit debate itself is being revived across the city. Here at Baruch College, several esteemed citizens of New York have come together to talk about the current situation and the issue as a whole. The public forum was put together by Common Cause of New York, Citizens Union and NYPIRG. All three organizations are against the Mayor's way of doing things but the panelists are sitting in the room representing many different perspectives on the matter.

Professor Richard Briffault started things off and brings his "Professor of Legislation" at Columbia to the table, as well as his consultancy work to the Charter Revision nearly twenty years ago. He addresses many issues concerning term limits and that there are pros and cons to both sides of the matter.

Councilwoman Reyna spoke to how a legislator works within the system. As Chair of the Rules Committee, she's a powerful member on the Council and has been a strong advocate for the low to middle class constituents in her district (34th - Queens/Brooklyn). She says that the Mayor is using the Council as a "punching bag" to hammer this through even though he could have sought a referenda before 2008.

Randy Mastro went next and as Deputy Mayor under Giuliani, has a working knowledge of the city's Executive branch. He says whether or not you agree with term limits, the process matters and that this action by Bloomberg will be found to be illegal. He advocates for a public referendum that could be on the ballot by early 2009, long before candidates must petition to get on the ballot. Mastro is worried that Bloomberg's push for this legislation is being rushed with no good reason other than, what seems to be pure politics. He even goes as far to say that Bloomberg owes his own tenure as Mayor to term limits. Mastro is passionately against hizzoner's plan, but at least in the opening round he does not address the question of term limits sans Bloomberg.

Mitchell Moss is an Urban Policy Professor at NYU and says at the outset he'll address the issue. He's clearly against them, mentioning that only consultants and campaign fundraising benefits from term limits. Elected officials need time in office to learn how government works. Also that in special elections low turnouts produce motivated voters that can affect great change if certain groups are mobilized to do so. Due to that, he argues that the Council's determination to vote on the current term limit legislation is at least as representative as a referenda. As for the third point, he really didn't get to it, but his message was clear, we should get rid of term limits, period.

Now Councilman Fidler gets his five minutes. He starts off addressing the fiscal crisis and how this is more important than term limits (I agree). He takes pride in opposing Bloomberg repeatedly and even endorsing Freddy Ferrer. He is sick of the billionaire's involvement in this and how the debate was presented by the Mayor. However, he's been against term limits throughout and will vote to change the charter by a Council vote regardless. Term limits give too much power to lobbyists, bureaucrats and staff members. "This isn't Poli Sci 101, this is the real world," says Fidler. As passionately as Randy Mastro is against the change, Fidler is for it. The Councilman then smacked Mastro's arguments and brought up his advocacy for pay raises to counter the Conflicts of Interest Board petition against the current legislation.

Esmeralda Simmons rounds out the panel. Her experience as a civil rights and a voting rights attorney leads her to believe that Bloomberg is using the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protest a special election is "baloney." Ultimately the Justice Department rules on this but her faith in the current Administration (on the Federal level) isn't so strong in meting out a fair decision. She is most ashamed about this being a controlled act. She does not want the voters to be duped and does not believe the Mayor is being truthful about the process. She prefers a referenda over the Council's vote but in a perfect world a general election should ask this question.

Now back to the questions. Councilman Bill de Blasio stood up and addressed the members of the panel, praising all of them. He is a well known opponent of Bloomberg's legislation but says it is a "democracy question." He "honestly feels that our democracy is threatened" due to the Mayor's extreme power and ability to undermine public debate on the issue. Ultimately Bloomberg's wealth gives him immense power in an election against those who aren't billionaires.

Gene Russianoff asks the second question about why this is such an important issue. Councilman Fidler says this is a political question and that those who have the most to gain or lose are speaking with greatest volume. Funny enough, as Fidler mentions this, a member of the audience shouted out that the Councilman's term is up next year (makes you wonder about what Fidler has to lose, eh?). Moss backs him up and adds that it isn't like 2001 in that people can vote to re-elect Bloomberg and not keep him longer like Giuliani had wanted. Mastro is still shocked at the speed of the legislation going into the Council and again reaffirms the will of the voters. Councilwoman Reyna favors legislative action and seems to go off from her "undecided" stance, claiming that the people can decide things in next year's election. Fidler follows her up with more theater. Simmons then wonders if any of the Councilmembers have polled their district to see how the public feels.

Finally a new question is segmented in, Gene and Susan ask why can't the people have more of a say? Fidler quotes a poll that people want term limits rescinded for Bloomberg and he's only gotten 24 calls about the matter. He doesn't legislate by poll and that's that, even though he mentions lots of numbers. Mastro then follows up by saying that people are generally opposed to career politicians and institutions but no so much the individuals that fill those seats. He counters that legislative responsibility is also about being willing to respond to your constituents and that it has happened before where the Council asked the people to vote on an issue.

Now Susan Lerner turns it over to the audience's questions, only thirty-five minutes after the schedule says it'll start.

The first guy is against term limits, but against Bloomberg's plan and disappointed in the Council not being able to reframe the debate and that he wants an education debate and not a soundbite tidal wave financed by billionaires like Bloomberg, Lauder and (most likely) Golisano. Reyna whines about the situation and everyone tells her to propose a bill to change the debate and then Fidler breaks in to continue his pro-term limit theater. Professor Briffault calls for more time so that the issue can be better studied and digested by the people.

Council candidate Yetta (inaudible) for the 3rd District gets up next and wonders how the current Council rationalizes their vote when most New Yorkers are in favor of keeping term limits. Moss goes back to the argument that the Council has the power to change the charter regardless of previous referenda as well as the fact that seventy-five people showed up for this forum.

PDA and DFNYC member Scott (inaudible) rails on Quinn and says that we as voters have no representation, so will they vote against Quinn if she is re-elected to a third term to Speaker again. Reyna promptly gives him a "no."

Many questioners will follow but I wonder if the debate over term limits got anywhere tonight. A lot of words were said but mostly about the current situation and not the philosophical question on having term limits. Fidler answered that best, saying no, no, no. Most of the panel was against term limits but solidly opposed to what Bloomberg was doing. One thing that wasn't answered was about the good things of term limits. Does it help democracy or not? The power of incumbency was rarely addressed by the panel and perhaps a sit down with Professor Briffault would answer that better. The theater was certainly great and I loved de Blasio's entrance in the middle of it. If the fireworks here were any indication of what will go down at the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday, then that will be an even greater show.

Ah, well my battery is in the red and it is time for dinner outside this very spacious conference room at Baruch.

Should We Trust The MTA?

Not that it matters at this point in time, but it seems that the congestion pricing debate is out of the public's hands and into the state legislature's. Sure we can still protest to our respective Assemblymembers and Senators, but the support and opposition is pretty solid by now and the Governor is working with Bloomberg to make sure what the city council passed this week goes through as planned. One of the big questions in the congestion pricing debate was whether the money would actually go to improving the system like Bloomberg said. Well N.Y.P.I.R.G. and Straphanger Campaign extraordinaire Gene Russianoff sounded off on the issue this morning.

He's telling us to trust the lockbox:

As a transit advocate for the last 25 years, I share these concerns. We all know stories about how money collected by state and city government hasn't gone where it should, such as Lotto proceeds intended for improving schools.

The Congestion Mitigation Commission (on which I served) proposed a "transit lockbox" to safeguard all congestion-pricing revenues. The legislation approved by the City Council and now under consideration in Albany contains this provision - and strengthens it, by ensuring that congestion-pricing funds can only go to improve, not just maintain, the transit system.

This mandates that congestion pricing won't simply replace state funds the MTA would've gotten anyway. And to prevent political funny business, the money generated by congestion pricing goes directly to the MTA, so that Albany can't take it away.

Well thats great that Albany can't take it away. Though the MTA has a history of saying one thing and doing another, like they did last week when the money from fare increase meant for improving service disappeared. Russianoff claims that we should trust this because he sat on the creation of this lockbox (how Gore-esque of him) and that when the MTA started receiving funds from toll surpluses, it went to good use. Also the capital plan has to be signed off on by the Governor, Mayor and both state houses. That sounds great Gene, that is a great wall of protection that we have installed to prevent abuse of the system. However, this is still New York and despite your best efforts, I still find that the money dedicated to improving our transit system can still be used for "maintenance" purposes.

Why is that? Well, for starters, having maintenance for the NY transit system would technically be an improvement.

Gene Russianoff Gives The Fare Increase A Silver Lining

Now that the fare increase is a reality, soon to hit straphangers pocketbooks early next year things are looking pretty glum. Not for the board members of the MTA of course, they get a free pass on Metrocards (if they ever even use them) and E-Z Pass tolls. Yet for the rest of us, Gene Russianoff reminds us that even though the battle was lost, the war against the transit authority is not over. Gene by the way, works for N.Y.P.I.R.G. and specifically for their Straphangers Campaign for the last twenty-five years.

From The Daily News:

The public holds Gov. Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg responsible for the fare hike. Through their statements and actions, the governor and mayor made this fare hike theirs. Any myth of independence for the MTA was obliterated. Spitzer, like his predecessor George Pataki, now has a huge political deficit on transit which he will have to make up before the 2010 election season.

Spitzer committed to give major new transit aid by 2010. The MTA's financial plan calls for the state and city to contribute an additional $600 million a year to finance operating expenses, beginning in 2010. Just before Thanksgiving Spitzer said, "We are talking about a 2010 commitment of $600 million, shared with the city. That is an enormous commitment that we have made, that I have made, and we will be good for."

There is a lot of support in the state Legislature for helping the MTA and its riders. Led by state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, 61 legislators asked for a delay on the fare hike so they could consider transit needs during the regular state budget deliberations. The Assembly members wrote: "There are many strong reasons for increasing government aid to the MTA. There has been no permanent new state operating aid to MTA New York City Transit in at least a dozen years." The Senate majority and minority leaders also spoke out against the fare increase, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver stressed the possibility for new state aid.

The MTA called its original fare proposal a "modest" hike, but it had to be scaled back. The MTA financial proposal called for regular fare increases every two years to track inflation. But there was little political appetite for a funding strategy that targets only the riding public. As a result, 40% of the original increase evaporated.

The transit fare will now likely be frozen for at least three years. The MTA's financial plan calls for holding fares until 2010, two years from now. But that's an election year for governor, so a fare hike in 2010 is unlikely. If New York adopts a pilot project to test congestion charges for entering Manhattan, there's a good argument for freezing the fare for the three-year trial run.

There is widespread agreement that any fare increase has to be equitable. Better discounts have historically come out of past fare battles, from free bus transfers to 24-hour senior half-fares to unlimited-ride MetroCards. This year's new 14-day unlimited-ride MetroCard is a step forward. It provides a greater discount than the seven-day card, but is more within reach of a 30-day MetroCard. In addition, riders who buy the less expensive pay-per-ride discount will see the smallest increase.

Did this year's fare fight make a difference? I can understand the skepticism of many New Yorkers, but I think so.

I agree, it is hard to see a bright side to paying higher fares, but like everything else in life, there is more than meets the eye, especially when it wants to focus on the bad things. Russianoff has been an expert on fighting fare hikes for a long time and if he can see some good here, then I'll choose to see it as well.

We're Still Going To Have To Pay More To The MTA, While They Save Less

You know all those trains under and above the streets of New York? Those sub-and-above-ways run on an operating budget of $10.8 billion dollars a year. Craziness I know, but what is nuts is that while Spitzer-approved fare increases will net the MTA $163 million, while the transit authority is only trying to save $50 million. That's the MTA, hard at work as usual.

From The Daily News:

The savings in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 2008 "Program to Eliminate the Gap" are equal to less than one-half of 1% of the authority's proposed $10.8 billion operating budget.

"Most riders think they could do better at saving money," said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign.

Even with those savings, which include leaving some vacancies unfilled and eliminating other positions, MTA spending will increase by about $500 million, or about 5%, next year, according to the budget going before the board next month.

MTA CEO Elliot Sander has said that the agency can't make deeper cuts than those outlined in the proposed budget and four-year financial plan without curtailing service and maintenance.

Curtailing service and maintenance? That sounds like a scare tactic to me. Their resistance to seeing what the state legislature can do for them in the spring is also disheartening. Sander says he doesn't want to burden them until he asks for larger amounts of money for the second phase of the 2nd Avenue subway and other projects. Well Mr. Sander, those things will come later, relief from a fare increase is needed now.

NY Legislature Steps Up Against The Fare Increase

With the MTA's first board meeting tonight in Brooklyn, transit advocates have been increasingly clamoring for a halt to a fare increase slated for February. In addition to the Daily News daily assault against the MTA, state legislators have been joining the public chorus. Now the State Assembly and Senate are doing something that the rest of us can't, introducing a substantial budget increase for the MTA, a concrete solution that can put the brakes on the MTA's fare increase.

From The NY Sun:

State lawmakers today are announcing new legislation that would increase city and state aid to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority by $660 million, a boost they say could help stave off the fare hike scheduled for February.

Transit advocates are rallying behind the bill and are planning to voice their opposition to higher subway and bus fares this evening in Brooklyn at the first public hearing on the fare hike.

"The state has not been giving the MTA its fair share of revenue to operate the system," state Senator Thomas Duane of Manhattan, who is introducing the bill today, said.

"It's the MTA's job is to make the fare hike seem inevitable," the chief attorney for the Straphangers Campaign, Gene Russianoff, said. "We have some good arguments that this one isn't."

The proposal has finally hit some of the ears at the MTA. Some board members are pleased by it, but others still want to see $2 billion in funds for the next two years. According to board insiders, even this hefty sum doesn't seem to impress enough of the decision makers. For now, the MTA has a huge surplus and the body itself does not expect to run deficits until 2009.

Ultimately, the decision to increase fares might come down to the Mayor. If Bloomberg is smart, he'll head the board's decision to hike the fare and come down on the side of New Yorkers and not a board that probably doesn't even ride the subway much.

Enough With The Fare Hike Already!

Despite protests from straphangers, members of the state legislator and the City Comptroller, the MTA is determined to raise the price of a subway ride. Whenever we speak out, they come up with another reason to increase the fare. Their most persistent cry is that they'll be $100 million short if they delay the increase till next year. Well the Daily News poured through their numbers and found a different story than what the MTA is saying.

From The Daily News:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority claims it would lose $100 million if the hikes were pushed back to later next year as urged by leaders of the Stop the Fare Hike Campaign.

But MTA data released yesterday show it could bridge that gap. Real estate tax receipts are $60 million higher than forecast. Though the MTA cautioned that may not last, records also show fare and toll revenue up $49 million higher and health care spending down $25 million.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) said the data "undercuts the argument that the system needs the money immediately."

The News has also learned the MTA is sitting on its $50 million in surplus funds set aside late last year for a stalled program to repaint 200 stations.

Now I have never been particularly good at math, but if memory and a pencil serves me right, those numbers add up to $184 million dollars, then add in their $317 million dollar surplus and that has to take you well over what they are complaining about losing. Oh and by the way, if you need $250,000 to paint a subway station, by all means give me a shout and I'll do it for you and for less than a quarter million dollars.

Spitzer Stands Up For Transit Workers Union

Spitzer showed himself to be a Democratic Governor today by announcing his support for the Transit Workers Union. There is nothing better than a strong collective workforce when you want to bargain for fair pay and good treatment. As Attorney General he angered the brass of the TWU by stripping them of automatic deductions from workers' checks to pay for dues but that seems like it might come to an end. He has agreed that they should be able to collect the money to remain fiscally secure.

From The Daily News:

In a move sure to spark controversy, Spitzer will support the financially struggling TWU Local 100 if it seeks to win back the right to automatically deduct dues from workers' paychecks, according to a labor leader familiar with the governor's plan.

"The governor is trying to position himself to see a productive collective-bargaining season in 2008," the union leader said, noting that the historically bad relationship between the TWU and the MTA has long complicated contract talks.

"He'll take the public relations hit now because at the end of the contract, he doesn't want to go through that kind of problem again," the leader concluded. "He's positioning himself, putting himself and the MTA in a better position for the future."

Yeah the MTA will be pissed, but sometimes you need to act for everyone's own good. The men and women that keep our trains and buses humming deserve the best conditions out there. The people at the top of the MTA often do not have it all together, something that helped prompt the strike two years ago. If the TWU can sit up straighter at next year's round of talks to renegotiate their contracts, that will not only help transit workers' future, it will keep the MTA working as smoothly as possible.

Get Ready To Shell Out More $$$ To Ride MTA

Nobody wants to deal with a fare increase when it comes to the troubled MTA in the city. After using the Tube in London, our system feels like something out of the third world. A regular ride here costs $2 ($1.60 when you count the buy 5, get one free system) and in London it is 1.60 in Pounds (or one quid and 60 pence). The difference in service is not even close. They have friggin couches in the cars for crying out loud, not to mention up-to-date service announcements on their website, clean stations and boards on every platform telling you when the next two trains are coming.

So after seeing how Londoners do it, it pisses me off to see the MTA getting ready to charge us even more for a woeful ride on the subway. The board is meeting in December to decide how much and based on comments coming out of the Mayor's office, he won't put up much of a fight. He'd rather possible congestion-pricing revenue go to system expansion projects instead (though it isn't even guaranteed).

The MTA needs more pressure put upon it to wait for a fare increase until next year. I am against any fare increase in three months and instead wait until more develops on the congestion pricing front. In addition to little ol' me, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign and many civic organizations feel the same way. I'm guessing a few million New Yorkers might be on our side as well.

Subway Fare Increase A Fair Deal?

MTA officials are contemplating an increase in fares for next year despite a billion dollar surplus. They claim that because of a massive debt service (around $32 billion) most of that extra money needs to go there. The New York Times wrote an article today on the story, showing opposition the increase by State Senator Dean G. Skelos (R-Long Island) but countered his arguments with a "measured response" by Straphangers Campaign Representative Gene Russianoff. The NYT made it seem like accepting a small fare increase now would be better than an even larger toll in 2009 (6.5% vs. 15%).

But hold on a second, there is more to this than the Times lets on. First of all, service is terrible on the subways. My friends in Brooklyn refer to the F train as the F*** train and I've got plenty of shit to say about the Lexington local by me. All the lines have their problems and it doesn't seem like much is being done about service yet they want to raise rates while having more cash than they have ever had???

Oh and another thing, the Times grossly misrepresented Russianoff and the Straphangers Campaign. What did they actually have to say about this mess? Not quite what the Times lets on. Here's a little snippet from their press release yesterday:

Who should contribute to solving the MTA's financial woes?

The MTA now receives billions in financial support from riders through fares, motorists through tolls and gas taxes, and corporations, consumers and property owners, all through dedicated transit taxes. That makes sense. All who benefit from the biggest transit system in the U.S. should support it.

Shouldn't riders pay the whole tab?

Riders are already paying more than their fare share. In 2005, MTA told federal transit officials that the fare burden on its riders was 58% - with subways at 68% and buses at 42%. The national average for big transit systems is 40%. MTA CEO Lee Sander told a state legislative committee this January: "In 2007, MTA expects to generate $5.4 billion, or 60%, of its total $9.2 billion in operating revenues primarily from fares and tolls. This is a phenomenally high fare box return."

How do we make sure riders aren't the only ones asked to help out?

Any proposal to raise fares should only be seriously considered if and when the state legislature approves Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal and/or other transit aid to raise billions of dollars to fix transit and take pressure off the budget. As was the case in 2003, the decision on fares should not be made before the early spring - specifically no earlier than March 31st, 2008, the date the state legislature is due to decide the fate of congestion pricing.

Yes, we need to wait for the congestion-pricing situation to complete its course. Those revenues would greatly offset the need for any rate increase. Meanwhile we pay for a greater percentage of the MTA's costs than any other city in the country. Financing the debt should not be laid on the backs of subway riders, especially those that have the most trouble paying for it.