By Henry J. Stern
September 21, 2006

The disarray at the MTA was demonstrated yesterday when proposals for $20 million in service cuts,  reported by the press Tuesday, were publicly rejected by chairman Peter Kalikow on Wednesday.
 
Both announcements were published in the newspapers.  A Times article by William Neuman on July 20, "M.T.A. SEEKS SERVICE CUTS OF $20 MILLION; Longer Waits Likely, And Heavier Crowds", appeared on B1 and jumped to B6.  The Times quaintly uses periods in MTA that is their style.  On July 21, also on B1, this time jumping to B5, Neuman's story was headed: "M.T.A. CHAIRMAN SAYS HE'LL BLOCK SERVICE CUTS AND OPPOSE NEW FARES".   Reasonably assuming that both stories are accurate, one can only observe that "this is a hell of a way to run a railroad."
 
 It is not that unusual for a government agency to change its position on an issue.  This can follow the passage of time, a change in circumstances, the availability of additional funding, the intervention of a higher official, or actually listening to the comments at a public hearing.  In this particular case, Thursday's position is generally considered wiser than Wednesday's.  But doing a 180 in a single day is relatively rare.  What happened?
 
In Wednesday's story on the increases. board member Barry Feinstein spoke out against them.  Feinstein was a labor union official when appointed to the MTA board in 1989 by Governor Cuomo.  He announced on September 15 that he was resigning from the MTA board.  His most recent term expired in 2004, but under the Public Officers Law members of boards and commissions retain their positions until their successors are appointed and confirmed.  By the expedient of not naming board members when their terms expire, the executive gains the power to dismiss them at any time by appointing someone else to the board.   The value of the power of instant removal was vividly expressed by former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who said: "I never trust a man unless I’ve got  his pecker in my pocket."

The story is covered by all five dailies, with stories covering various aspects of the contretemps.  We have cited the Times earlier, but each paper has something useful to contribute.  In Newsday, Herbert Lowe, on A2,  "NO TO MTA FARE HIKE: Kalikow, citing gains in ridership, says he'll oppose agency plans for service reductions and fare boost in 2007."  In the News, Pete Donohue, p7, 'NO HIKE, BOSS OF MTA SEZ".  In the Post, Jeremy Olshan, p3,  "HIKE IS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS: Subway Fares Safe: MTA.  In the Sun, Christsopher Faherty, p3,  "IN A REVERSAL, MTA CHAIRMAN OPPOSES FARE HIKE, SERVICE CUTS". We are curious to see where the story goes from here.f.
 
Since the State Senate has ostensibly shut up shop for 2006, a successor to Feinstein, even if appointed by the governor, could not be confirmed unless Senator Bruno changes his mind and reassembles his flock.  I f the Senate had shut down for the year, it might be in the public interest, but wise observers suggests that the solons will drag themselves back to chilly Albany after Election Day in order to vote themselves a pay increase.  If the Republicans should happen to lose the Senate, look for them to do as much last-minute wheeling and dealing as they can  before control of the chamber shifts in January.
 
On Wednesday, Transit Workers Union president Roger Toussaint predictably denounced the proposed cuts, which would mean fewer train runs and less overtime for his members.   Later that day, chairman Kalikow issued a statement expressing his opposition to service reductions or fare increases for MTA subways, buses and commuter rails in 2007.
 
According to an account by Jeremy Olshan in the Post, "The announcement infuriated some transit officials, who contend the proposed cuts were included in the preliminary budget over their objections -- and now Kalikow is making himself out to be the hero, sources said."   Later in the story, the Post quoted Toussaint as saying "the MTA should cut suits instead of service."    Newsday also used a Toussaint quote: "We are glad it took Chairman Kalikow only a couple of hours to see the light this time.  The MTA [should trim] the fat from its own bloated administrative staff."
 
Chairman Kalikow will face a problem in January when the new governor takes office.  Eliot Spitzer has stated that he wants to appoint a new MTA chairman, who would be a key transportation figure in his administration if he were elected.   When Governor Pataki took office in January 1995, MTA chairman Peter Stangl resigned in May.  Pataki then appointed E. Virgil Conway, a bank president, to the chairmanship.  He served six years.  Kalikow, then a vice chair of the board, was appointed chair in 2001 by Pataki.
 
Today Kalikow is acting as the public defender of the fare and the service.  That is the popular position and also the correct one.   But why, then, was the opposite plan laid out to the Times on Wednesday?
 
Keeping the fare in the face of rising costs of operations, without productivity improvements, will, sooner or later, require increased subsidies.  That will be an issue for the new governor to decide.If he is fiscally responsible, he will have to make substantial cuts in the existing unsound and underfinanced state budget.  In the face of the state's fiscal problems, which are worse than the city's, the governor just may not be that into increasing transit subsidies.
 
The transit fare has been a political issue in New York City since before any of us were born.  The city's insistence on maintaining the five cent fare (except for the Fifth Avenue bus) in the 1930s and '40s) drove the private subway and bus companies into bankruptcy.
Once the city took over the lines, fares rose steadily.  She first increase was to ten cents, in 1948.
 
I remember that controversy very well, because I was assigned to write a composition for the late Simon Reisman's civics class in Junior High School 52, Manhattan.  My belief was that , in view or rising prices and operating deficits, a ten cent fare was necessary to operate the subway system.  We were free to choose our positions, and some classmates wrote in opposition to the increase, mostly kids who supported Henry Wallace for President (I was for Truman).  They said that if the ten cent fare were approved, some day the fare would be raised to fifteen cents.
 
One cannot help but wonder what essays are written in ninth grade civics classes in New York City schools today, and whether issues like public transit are under discussion.  We will probably be assured by educational authorities that the schools are even better today than in those ancient times I recollect.  No doubt there are statistics, compiled at considerable expense, to support this view.
 
As is often true in civic controversies, both sides on the transit issue were correct.  The increase was necessary, and the fare would rise further.  In 2006, the fare is forty times what it was in 1947, but as is often the case in New York City, not that many people pay retail.