Judge Orders MTA To Roll Back NYC Transit Fare Hike

Also, does anyone see ANY value in the Fun Passes anymore? I mean, talk about blown mathematics...

i feel sorry for the guys who have to go around and alter all the new stickers advertising the new fare

they should have repealed the obsoletion of tokens, too, it sucks paying minimum $4.00 at the booth

this gives me hope about the smoking thing but i'm not holding my breath (cough cough)

the subway thing -- great if the repeal it -- but it all seems so disorganized -- like are the gonna repeal it and then add it again, repeal and add -- it seems so arbitrary . . .

I mean, let's be honest here. Yeah, the system needs a lot of work and MTA doesn't seem to actually spend any money improving it, but it is like the only US public transport that runs 24/7, and it is still (even with increase) one of the least expensive in the world. You'd all be sorry if you lived in, like, Boston!

Even though the added expense of the lawsuit to the city and MTA is probably going to lead to further increases down the line, at a time when we're pretty hard strapped for cash?

My issue against the lawsuit is that the opposing side ADMITS that the fare hike is totally necessary. Again, it's playing pedanticism. It's a frivolous lawsuit in many ways--it basically is arguing whether or not the fare hike should come this month or about 5 months from now--the end result of which is going to end in the MTA spending FAR MORE MONEY than we're saving over the course of flipping this back and forth for a few months. The extra spending=extra increases down the line.

Like I said, even with the increase this is still just about the cheapest system around. An extra $7 a month on a monthly pass averages out to 23c per day if you use the subway every day, 35c if you only use it on the weekend.

And I don't use monthly/weekly passes so I'm spending more than all ya'all mofos!

I liked the New Yorker Talk of the Town piece about how the cost of a slice of pizza almost always = the cost of a subway ride.

(I realize some people have little choice, just making a joke)

the point is, diego, that EVERY public works agency is filled with deception and indeed nyc's and ny's governments are set up to embrace/hide/endorse these things. and that in the short term dropping the fair will cost nyc (thus us, its inhabitants) MORE money when we all know that the fair will just get bumped again. i wouldn't put it past the mta to bump it up to $2.50 claiming that the briefly lowered fair cost them more money...

last night i was told that changing all the metrocard machines back to $1.50 will cost nyc more than a $1 million. ridiculous.

The hope is that something would be worked out with the Limo and Taxi Comish. that would exempt cabs and livery drivers from the toll...

...Of course, nothing of the kind would happen and I'm talking out of my ass AS USUAL.

the cab companies are fighting the tolls, which to me says that they would not be exempt. and the city would be nuts to make them so, giving up that much potential revenue.

Cabs have never been exempt from tolls, and they probably won't make an exemption for the East River bridges.

Ally and Yanc3y do you also support the booth closings that have now been put on hold as a result of this decision? WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE YOU PEOPLE HAPPY.

But so does the cost of everything. It's not like millionares are crying over the rent control laws, either...The bottom line is, though, the cost of maintaining a 24/7, fairly consistent public service isn't exactly cheap, and again, $2 is still less than most similar systems in other cities.

I agree with the point that the MTA and similar public agencies should be held accountable for their behaviors. What I'm saying is, we're adding several million more dollars to their expense report by doing this, and for what? A couple of months until the date all sides agree upon as a necessary hike. By adding the millions to the cost of operations, they've got an excuse to do another fare hike, sooner than expected. I think this is more detrimental--it just seems like, why spend this much money on an argument that all sides agree is merely an argument of timing--and not like several years timing, a few months timing--anyway.

That's my point: no one is debating the need for the fare increase in order to pay for the improvements being made and the restructuring of the downtown transit. They're just debating how they went about getting the fare hike, and while it's a valid point, it seems like it's a huge waste of our money as the commuter.

The city doesn't get revenue from the subways; however the state decreases/increases city funding on the basis of city-based agencies that the state funds (ie subway being one of them).

What booth closings? I support all booth closings, those people have bad attitudes! They're always so rude! I like the automated machines, but then again I always pay for a full $20 metrocard, not single rides or anything.

Well, sure...

...and that in the short term dropping the fair will cost nyc (thus us, its inhabitants) MORE money when we all know that the fair will just get bumped again.

Not necessarily.

i wouldn't put it past the mta to bump it up to $2.50 claiming that the briefly lowered fair cost them more money...

I wouldn't be so surprised by that. But considering how much money the MTA stands to lose by rolling back the fair hike ($1 - $2 MM)versus how much money is in the surplus ($500 MM), it would be even less justified than the hike to $2/ride. And if the MTA finds that it can't just do whatever it wants without answering for it, maybe it will be less likely to try to pull some bullshit like trying to raise the fair even higher once the fair hike is justified (which it clearly is not right now).

Though I'm probably being too optimistic because of this ruling...

I don't see how the hike is "clearly" not justified, actually. Building out the subway lines (if they ever do, wtf? How does anyone even live on the east side, the lack of subways is appalling) and redoing Battery Park City is going to cost yards and yards of money.

Tracer, it's always the low-traffic neighborhoods that get the shut downs. See also: FDNY.

See: $500 Million surplus.

Ally, I agree with you that $2 a ride is not all that much considering the MTA operates 24/7 and serves a good portion of the city. But it's an exaggerated solution to a problem that turns out not to be as extreme as it was portrayed. Fine, there should be a fair hike soon. But they're not talking about 'months from now'. An eventual fair increase is fine, but why does it have to be a $.50 a ride increase? $1.65 or $1.75 would still bring in a ton of revenue.

Another issue with the MTA is that service seems to be getting appreciably worse--even after the fair increase. I've noticed more delays and other service problems in the last few months than in previous years.

Oh, and about the proposed 2nd avenue line: there was a plan a year ago to be finished with it in twenty years, but even with the fair increase that plan has been scrapped.

I see the point about the MTA needing the money to fund big projects like that, but it would be less of an issue if the MTA wasn't so poorly (perhaps criminally) managed.

Alleged surplus...and even if it's there, see: similar cost within funding massive supposed upcoming projects and replacing old trains with those weird silver future trains. Which is why the fare hike, according to Straphangers who put forth this lawsuit, will be justified, at latest, by the end of the year.

I agree with the general point that the MTA service isn't exactly phenomenal and that, like most governmental agencies, their management is bullshit.

But my question still stands: who do you think is going to be paying for the cost of this lawsuit? The upper brass at MTA? Albany? Um, no.

Ally this is the first time that the MTA have even considered having unstaffed stations, much less carried it out. I agree that in general this is the pattern when the government looks to cut costs but it's especially irresponsible in this particular situation since it's exactly these areas that need a human presence most.

Look, the MTA's legal expenses here are not big. The Straphangers launched a suit, the judge ruled, and that's that. If they want to be dicks about it and appeal, after admitting they cooked their books, and after the judge found they gave the public insufficient and misleading information at the abrupt and nominal hearings they held, well that's their right as slimy dissemblers I guess, but I'd think they could swallow their pride this time, realize they fucked up, and save us all some money by not fighting this decision tooth and nail.

I can't blame them for appealing the decision. They're going to have to now roll back and forth the prices several times this year (and I don't just mean the fare hike and reduction). It's a pain in the ass and a time/money consumer.

I mean, your argument can be turned around directly the other way: Straphangers group states that the fare hike IS NECESSARY. So wtf? Is like no one else seeing this point at all?

I mean, jesus, I'll give them 50c if it'll shut them up. Mind you, I hate Straphangers to begin with, their representatives are some of the whiniest fucks I"ve seen on NY1!

I totally give a shit because supposedly I'm not even going to be here in September, if we can keep it to $1.50 til then I'm psyched.

(though to be fair I just under-reported some measly dividends, prolly about 50c worth!)

May 16, 2003
Transit Agency to Appeal Judge's Order to Roll Back Fares
By RANDY KENNEDY

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority filed papers yesterday saying that it would appeal a Manhattan judge's order to roll back transit and commuter rail fares, setting off an automatic stay of the ruling.

The order on Wednesday by Judge Louis B. York of State Supreme Court gave the authority two weeks to reprogram turnstiles, buses and fare machines to the old levels, saying that the authority had violated the law by misleading the public about its finances.

But under state law, the M.T.A.'s notice of appeal stops that two-week clock, and sets the stage for arguments, possibly by the end of the month, before the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court.

In a slightly unusual move, the M.T.A.'s lawyers agreed yesterday with the Straphangers Campaign, the riders' advocacy group that had filed a lawsuit against the fare increases, to ask the Appellate Division to speed up the schedule for hearing the case, which could normally take six to eight months. Both sides are hoping to have a decision within two to three weeks.

Peter S. Kalikow, the authority's chairman, said in a statement, "This is not fair to our customers to be on an emotional roller coaster like this, and we'd like to get it resolved as soon as possible."

Lawyers for transit riders and commuters said yesterday that they were disappointed that Justice York's rollback order did not include scheduled increases in bridge and tunnel tolls.

Those tolls — 50 cents more on major M.T.A. bridges, like the Triborough Bridge, and 25 cents more on smaller bridges — are scheduled to increase at 3 a.m. Sunday. But the office of State Senator David A. Paterson of Manhattan, one of the originators of the fare lawsuit, said it was working to file papers with Justice York asking him to rescind the toll increases, too.

In his decision on Wednesday, Justice York ruled that 10 public hearings held by the authority in February to solicit riders' opinions about the proposed fare increases were "based on the false and misleading premise that the M.T.A. was in worse financial condition than it knew itself to be."

Notices for the hearings, posted in subway stations and at bus stops, said the authority faced a $2.8 billion shortfall over the next two years. But Justice York called that a "fictitious gap," and added that the misinformation "had a chilling effect on the public, discouraging an open and complete discussion of the proposals and foreclosing the presentation of creative alternatives."

Even if the suit is successful, it will only require the authority to hold new public hearings, based on more accurate information.

The authority, which has broad powers under state law to determine fares, is likely to vote to reinstate the increases it approved in March and put into effect earlier this month.

The authority's officials have said repeatedly that if they had waited until next year to raise fares, the budget shortfall caused by that delay would have forced them to raise base transit fares in 2004 even higher than $2 — perhaps to as much as $2.35.

May 16, 2003
2 Officials Fired by M.T.A. Say They Will Sue Agency
By BRUCE LAMBERT

Saying they want their jobs back, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's fired security director and his deputy formally notified the agency yesterday that they were suing it for wrongful discharge.

The agency fired the security director, Louis R. Anemone, and his deputy, Nicholas B. Casale, last Friday, six weeks after they accused it of corruption and of thwarting their investigations.

The two men, who had worked for the authority for a little more than a year, are seeking reinstatement and money for damages, they said yesterday at a news conference in Manhattan. "I will not go away," Mr. Anemone said. "I want my job back desperately. I want to go back because there's a job to be done."

Mr. Casale said that during his tenure, he referred $100 million worth of tainted contracts to the Manhattan district attorney's office for prosecution and called that "the tip of the iceberg" of possible scandals involving the authority's projects.

Lawyers for the two fired officials said their lawsuits would accuse the authority of defaming the men and of violating their constitutional right to free speech and the protections for whistle-blowers under civil service and labor laws. The lawyers said they may also seek a special hearing to clear their clients' names.

The defendants in the suits will be the authority and its chairman, Peter S. Kalikow; its executive director, Katherine N. Lapp; its director of labor relations, Gary Dellaverson; and its inspector general, Matthew D. Sansverie.

A spokesman for the authority, Tom Kelly, said: "It's not unusual that employees that have been fired file a lawsuit. The M.T.A. will defend its decision in court."

Mr. Sansverie's spokesman, James Bono, called the lawsuits an attempt "to instill a chilling effect on an independent inspector general."

The authority has declined to specify the grounds for firing the two men, citing confidentiality provisions on personnel matters. But earlier, Mr. Sansverie's office accused Mr. Anemone and Mr. Casale of fabricating a secret informant as the basis for an investigation and of improperly giving out police identification and parking placards. The two men deny both charges.

Mr. Anemone, formerly the top-ranking uniformed officer in the Police Department, said, "I did nothing wrong to deserve this punishment." The real reason for the firings, he said, is that the corruption investigations undertaken by him and Mr. Casale "met with resistance, obstruction and eventually retaliation by M.T.A. management."

Mr. Anemone's lawyer, Jay Shapiro, accused the inspector general of abusing his office "to hunt down two whistle-blowers and silence them."

A lawyer for Mr. Casale, Steven Hyman, criticized Mr. Dellaverson for his role in deciding on the firings. Mr. Anemone and Mr. Casale had said Mr. Dellaverson was their secret informant, though he denied it. The lawyer said Mr. Dellaverson should never have ruled on a dispute involving himself.

The authority, which is defending its unpopular fare increase against a court order revoking it, has been criticized by a transit riders' group, the city and state comptrollers and other officials. Gov. George E. Pataki, who controls the agency, has defended its leaders and its record.

Federal and local prosecutors are investigating the authority and some of its contractors for possible fraud and bribery. Hearings by a State Assembly oversight committee will resume today, with testimony from the authority's former chairman, E. Virgil Conway.