Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

  1. #1

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    Fare hikes? Roll 'em back! judge says

    MTA has two weeks to restore $1.50 fare to transit system

    By SAMUEL MAULL
    Associated Press Writer

    A Manhattan judge ordered the nation's largest transit agency to roll back fare increases for millions of commuters, responding to a commuter group's lawsuit that accused the agency of misleading the public about its finances.
    State Supreme Court Justice Louis York's order applies to more than 7 million daily riders who began paying a 50-cent fare increase on subways and buses as of May 4 and to more than 400,000 daily commuters on Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road suburban trains.

    His ruling followed a lawsuit by the Straphangers Campaign, a commuter group that charged the Metropolitan Transportation Authority violated the law by failing to make its financial situation clear before scheduling public hearings on the fare increase.

    Commuters cheered the ruling.

    "That's great" said subway rider Andy Fontanez, a 26-year-old Starbucks employee, at the Rockefeller Center station. "It helps me a lot because I would be spending about $35 more a month commuting."

    The judge said the MTA should put the rollback into place within two weeks. He said the March 6 decision to raise fares an average 33.3 percent on buses and subways "should be vacated because the determination was reached in violation of lawful procedure and not rationally based."

    "As a result, the May 2003 fare increases implemented pursuant to the board's March 6 determination will be rolled back to the date of the increase," he said. "In order to allow respondents to implement the changes efficiently, the court will allow them two weeks to roll back the fares."

    MTA lawyers argued during hearings earlier this month that it would be a logistical nightmare to reverse fare increases. One lawyer had said 12,000 pieces of equipment, including all 4,500 city buses, would need to be retrofitted to accept $1.50 fares instead of $2 fares.

    The MTA said the procedure would cost $2 million and cost the agency $1.2 million a day in lost revenue.

    York's ruling said that the rollback should be "retroactive" to the date that it took place but didn't make clear whether that meant customers who had paid the higher fares should also receive refunds.

    MTA officials, who can appeal the ruling, didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Wednesday.

    The judge said the notice that the MTA posted for a public hearing process for the transit fare increase was "invalid," supporting the Straphangers Campaign's arguments that the failure to reveal everything about its financial condition made the hearing process meaningless.

    The Straphangers on April 30 asked York to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the fare increase from taking effect in the first place. York denied the request, saying it would be too costly for the MTA to make the switch if he eventually ruled in the agency's favor.

    "This is really a victory for truth and government," said Gene Russianoff, attorney for the Straphangers Campaign. "Clearly the court saw that the MTA was misleading the riding public."

    The revelations about the agency's finances were contained in budget reviews issued last month by city Comptroller William Thompson and state Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who called Wednesday's ruling "a great victory for all New Yorkers."

    The lawsuit argued that the MTA concealed more than $500 million in projected surplus to make its finances look worse than they were. MTA officials argued they publicly referred to the fact that the agency would use savings to pay off future debt, although they acknowledged they explained themselves poorly.

    The MTA had argued it needed to raise fares to close a deficit it estimated at different times ranged from $952 million to $2.8 billion. It also decided to close 62 station booths; the judge said in his ruling that that decision must also be reversed.

    Originally published on May 14, 2003

    (Edited by Agglomeration at 12:15 am on May 15, 2003)

  2. #2

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge



    It may be short-lived, but a nice punch in the nose to the MTA.

  3. #3

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    Yahoo! In your face MTA. Too bad they're going to appel the desicion, but I hope that if it is raised again that it only be to 1.75.

  4. #4

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    I'm already suspecting that there are similar cover-ups and backroom deals at the LMDC and the WTC rebuilding process as a whole. This backdoor deal method is probably what gave us Libeskind's design. Needless to say, congratulations to the Straphangers for helping to blow this deceit out into the open.

  5. #5
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,298

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    Hopefully they'll bring the token back also. *Or at least allow people to pay in change on the subway.

  6. #6

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    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.


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

  7. #7

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    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."
    Pete, have you no shame?

  8. #8

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    "Shame" is a lost concept at the MTA as is the term "customers".

  9. #9

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    They haven't lowered the fare yet!!!!

  10. #10

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    More bad news for the MTA

    June 5, 2003

    Judge Orders Toll Rollback at Crossings, Ruling Against M.T.A. Echoes Decision on Fares

    By RANDY KENNEDY


    State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority yesterday to roll back toll increases on several bridges and tunnels, saying that the authority deliberately misled the public about its finances before it approved the increases.

    In practical terms, the ruling will have no immediate effect for the millions of drivers who use the seven bridges and two tunnels controlled by the authority, because an appeal and an automatic stay are likely. But the ruling represents another serious blow for the authority, after a different judge ordered it last month to roll back fare increases on subways, buses and commuter rail lines.

    The authority has been widely criticized over the last several months for insularity and deception in the way it approved the increases, the first in almost eight years.

    The decision yesterday by Justice Robert D. Lippmann closely paralleled the one last month by Justice Louis B. York. But Justice Lippmann's ruling was much more strident in its criticism of the M.T.A.'s actions leading up to the fare and toll increases, and its conduct even before that.

    Justice Lippmann wrote that officials of the authority had "displayed a pattern of untrammeled arrogance and deception and a disdain for the public they were obligated to serve."

    He said the evidence showed that "during the past few months, and probably years, the M.T.A. has been operating in a manner inconsistent with the legislative intent" of the state's Public Authorities Law.

    He added, "Permanent remedies for the M.T.A.'s misconduct lie with the governor, the Legislature and the comptroller, not the courts."

    But the courts had the power to order toll increases rolled back, he wrote, for the same reason that transit fares had been ordered rolled back: riders and elected officials were given misleading information before a series of legally mandated public hearings held in February.

    The hearings, Justice Lippmann wrote, were "fundamentally flawed" because the authority, in notices posted in hundreds of subway stations and other places, had led the public to believe that it was facing a budget gap of $2.8 billion, when the number was closer to $1 billion.

    The Automobile Club of New York, which filed the lawsuit challenging the toll increases, also cited reports issued in April by both the city and state comptroller that contended that the authority had engaged in numerous deceitful practices, including secretly shifting more than $500 million in surplus money from 2002 to 2003 and 2004 to build a better case for an immediate fare increase.

    "Had the true financial facts been known," Justice Lippmann wrote, echoing Justice York, "the public testimony in opposition to fare and toll hikes would undoubtedly have been far more vigorous, spirited and persuasive."

    Unlike the M.T.A., the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, an affiliate of the M.T.A. that controls the bridges and tunnels and their tolls, is not legally required to hold public hearings in advance of a vote to increase tolls.

    But the M.T.A. included the issue of toll increases in the series of 10 public hearings regarding transit fares that were held around the region.

    And in his ruling, Justice Lippmann pointed out that, under state law, even when a public hearing is conducted voluntarily, the law still requires the authority to provide accurate information to the public in notices about the hearing.

    Justice Lippmann's ruling gives the authority 10 days to come up with a way to refund the extra money that drivers have paid since tolls increased on May 18. But that timetable will probably be shelved until the authority's appeal is heard.

    If the authority loses the appeal, it could be required to repeat the process of approving toll increases. But under state law the authority has broad power to set tolls and could simply vote to return them to the present rate.

    In March, the M.T.A. board voted to increase tolls by 50 cents on the Throgs Neck Bridge, the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, the Triborough Bridge, the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. On the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, the increase was $1. Tolls were raised by 25 cents on the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge, the Henry Hudson Bridge and the Cross Bay-Veterans' Memorial Bridge. Beyond saying that they would appeal the case, transit officials declined to comment yesterday on the ruling or Justice Lippmann's criticism. A spokesman for the Automobile Club of New York said the organization was ecstatic.

    "With such strongly worded language, a light has been shown on the actions of the M.T.A.," said the spokesman, Robert O. Sinclair Jr.


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

  11. #11

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    July 15, 2003

    Court Sides With M.T.A. in Toll Hike Dispute

    NEW YORK (AP) -- The MTA had the legal right to raise the city's transit fares and tolls, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

    The ruling was a loss for the Straphangers Campaign, a transit advocacy group that had previously convinced two lower court judges to roll back bus, subway and commuter train fares as well as tolls on city bridges and tunnels.

    On May 4, New York's transit agency, the MTA, the nation's largest with 7 million daily riders, raised fares from $1.50 to $2 -- its first hike since 1995 -- to help eliminate a budget deficit variously estimated from $952 million to $2.8 billion.

    The latest ruling favored arguments by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a state agency that oversees NYC Transit.

    The state appeals court reversed the two lower court decisions that had ordered the rollback, which had not taken effect.

    The Straphangers Campaign, a transit advocacy group, planned to appeal, said its staff attorney, Gene Russianoff. `We will appeal on behalf of riders and all New Yorkers who want honest, open government,` he said.

    `We believe that the MTA clearly violated state law when it concealed information critical to informed public discussion and issued notices for public hearings designed to mislead and disinform,` said Brian O'Dwyer, another lawyer for the group.

    The Straphangers scheduled a news conference for later Tuesday afternoon.

    `We're disappointed,` said Robert Sinclair, a spokesman for the Automobile Club of New York. He said lawyers would review the decision before deciding whether to appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

    MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow called Tuesday's ruling `appropriate and proper` and said the state-run agency's decision to raise fares and tolls this year `was a difficult decision made in the best interests of our regional transportation system.`

    City Comptroller William C. Thompson, who with state Comptroller Alan Hevesi issued two reports in April that revealed the diversion of more than $500 million to future MTA budgets, said the rulings should be overturned.

    `The issue remains clear: The public should not have to pay a fare hike that was adopted without clear and accurate evidence that it was necessary,` Thompson said.

    Hevesi said he would soon issue regulations to improve the MTA's financial reporting procedures.

    The MTA has already agreed to release its budget information earlier, releasing an early version of its 2004 budget later this month; post more information on its Web site; and it has appointed a group of ex-city finance experts to help it better explain its financial condition. Those measures, Kalikow said Tuesday, `will make the MTA the most public and transparent agency in government.`


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

  12. #12

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    July 18, 2003

    Subway Fare: Bottom Line on Jump to $2

    By CLYDE HABERMAN

    ONCE prices go up, they don't come down. That was the opinion heard around town this week after a state appeals court gave its blessing to the higher mass-transit fares and tolls in effect since May.

    In doing that, the court reversed the decisions of lower-level judges who had ordered a fare rollback, having found the Metropolitan Transportation Authority guilty of bad faith, bad judgment and nearly everything else short of bad breath.

    For a while, some New Yorkers dared to dream the impossible dream: a refund. When that bubble burst, many reacted with world-weary sighs. Aah, we knew it all along, they said. 'Twas too good to be true. Indeed, once prices go up, they don't come down.

    But sometimes they do. The transit fare is an example, especially for New Yorkers who regularly use the subway and buses. Even with this fare increase, to a base of $2, they are paying less than the old $1.50 base and barely more than they were a decade ago.

    The reason, of course, is the MetroCard, which has sent the subway token to a retirement home. The card makes possible an assortment of discounts long championed by advocacy groups like the Straphangers Campaign that are now taking the transportation authority to task and to court.

    Under the old $1.50 base fare, the authority estimated that the average rider was actually paying only $1.04, thanks to the discounts and free transfers between buses and the subway. (Many people have already forgotten that such transfers were impossible until just a few years ago.)

    Granted, the agency's math has been seriously called into question. Its leaders admit, somewhat belatedly, that they have been far from models of clarity or transparency about their finances.

    But unless you have better numbers in your pocket, it is hard to challenge that $1.04 figure. It amounts to 4 cents more than the $1 fare that prevailed in the late 1980's, pre-MetroCard. Not exactly a sign of rampant inflation, is it?

    O.K., the base fare is now up to $2. No one is happy about it. But with the discounts, the transportation authority projects that the cost of a ride will average about $1.30. Its estimates will have to do for a while because it is too soon for hard numbers.

    That $1.30 is comfortably below the old base fare of $1.50. It is also a mere nickel above the $1.25 that was the fare from 1992 to 1995.

    True, not all people do benefit equally from the MetroCard, as the Straphangers Campaign often points out. The discounts favor riders who can shell out a hefty sum — $70 for the 30-day card, for example — more than those able to spare only a few dollars at a time. Also, some people have no choice but to pay the full $2.

    Still, the principle behind all the discounts is the same: those who rely on them the most will enjoy the greatest benefits. If you ride the subway or the bus a lot, your cost per ride will significantly shrink, ending up much closer to $1 than to $2. Is there a more fundamental goal for mass-transit advocates than to increase ridership and, in the process, keep cars off the streets?

    PERHAPS the real issue is that price increases have not come often enough. That is what some officials are beginning to think, and they have more than mass transit in mind.

    In the last month, both the State University and the City University of New York have substantially raised undergraduate tuition, by as much as 28 percent. Both went eight years with no increases at all.

    Taxi fares in New York are likely to rise appreciably; they have not budged in seven years. The recent increase in the property tax, 18.5 percent, was the first in more than a decade. Back to the mass-transit fare, it had not gone up in seven and a half years. For three decades before that, fares rose every two or three years, on average, always by relatively small amounts.

    Peter S. Kalikow, the transportation authority chairman, has said that a return to more modest, but more frequent, increases may be the wiser path. Matthew Goldstein, the City University chancellor, has made a similar point about tuition increases.

    The concept makes sense to Mitchell Moss, an urban affairs specialist at New York University and an adviser to the mayor. If price increases are necessary and inevitable, Professor Moss said, better that they come in small doses, in good times as well as bad. That way, he said, "it's a lot easier for people to absorb."

    The alternative is sticker shock, which is what New Yorkers are now experiencing — and not liking it one bit.


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

  13. #13

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    MTA Posts $186M Surplus

    By Joshua Robin
    Newsday Staff Writer

    July 30, 2003, 6:45 PM EDT

    MTA officials vowed Wednesday to keep fares and tolls the way they are through 2004, but continued the fight to close 62 token booths.

    The announcements came as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority released its preliminary 2004 budget and reams of other financial documents at their July board meeting.

    The disclosures are part of a new transparency policy adopted after the state and city comptroller found the MTA kept two sets of books -- one public, the other internal.

    Referring to the documents, board member Kenneth Caruso said: "I urge the public, including our most vociferous critics, to jump in with both feet."

    According to the financial statements, the MTA will estimates it will end this year with a $186.3 million surplus -- a far cry than the $2.8 billion deficit it posted last year.

    MTA Budget Director Gary Caplan said the authority will absorb the surplus in its 2004 budget, when it faces higher operating expenses and debt service.

    But a faction of the MTA's largest union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, said the surplus shows the MTA's duplicity. As recently as last year, when the MTA negotiated its contract with workers, the authority said it needed workers to give up a first year raise to offset its budgetary woes.

    "People don't feel they got a fair shake," said Richard McKnight, a subway car inspector.

    Katherine Lapp, MTA executive director, said the authority will not revisit the contract.

    She also said the authority still plans its controversial proposal to shutter the 62 part-time booths, which would save about $6 million over three years. Gov. George Pataki hasn't indicated whether he will sign two bills that would prohibit the booth closures for up to three years.

  14. #14

    Default Roll Back MTA Fare to $1.50, says Judge

    August 27, 2003

    New Rules to Open Up M.T.A. Budget

    By MICHAEL COOPER

    State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi said yesterday that he would invoke a rarely used provision of state law to force the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to adopt new regulations intended to make its finances and budget practices more transparent.

    The authority, which pushed through the biggest fare increase in its history this year, has come under repeated attacks for the secrecy that has surrounded its finances.

    Mr. Hevesi is using his powers under the state finance law to get the M.T.A. to open up its budget process, down to requiring it to issue monthly reports on whether its expenses and revenues are in line with its projections. After the public and the authority comment on the regulations he proposed, state officials said, they will take effect.

    The transportation authority was criticized for the murkiness of its finances both before and after it raised the price of a single subway ride to $2 from $1.50 this year.

    Before the increase, when Gov. George E. Pataki, who controls the authority's board, was running for re-election last year, critics charged the agency with withholding information about its fiscal condition to obscure the likelihood that a fare increase was imminent. Weeks after Mr. Pataki's re-election, transit officials called for the increase.

    After the fare went up questions about the authority's finances only increased.

    Mr. Hevesi, along with City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., audited the authority and charged that it had used two sets of books to conceal a surplus and strengthen its case for an immediate fare increase. Those findings led a State Supreme Court judge to rule that the authority had misled the public and to order it to rescind the fare increase. But a state appeals court unanimously reversed that decision.

    One of the regulations Mr. Hevesi proposed yesterday would require the authority to identify any plans it has to shift resources from one year to another. That would make it much harder for the authority to conceal surpluses by earmarking the money for use in the future, as Mr. Hevesi and Mr. Thompson charged that it did this year.

    Officials at the authority, stung by the accusations that they had been secretive and duplicitous, announced a series of changes to its budget process earlier this year.

    Katherine N. Lapp, the authority's executive director, said in May that the authority would announce its preliminary budget earlier each year, to allow more time for public scrutiny, and that it would begin issuing running four-year financial plans that it would update three times a year. The authority issued its financial plan and 2004 preliminary budget last month, four months earlier than usual.

    Mr. Hevesi praised the steps that Ms. Lapp had taken so far, but said that new regulations were still needed so the budget reforms would "not depend on the good will of individual executives."

    "The regulations I have proposed today will ensure that the public and their elected representatives have all the information they need to fully participate in future debates about transportation and fare policies," he said in a statement. "The debate should be focused on public transportation policies, not the transparency of the M.T.A.'s budget."

    John McCarthy, a spokesman for the authority, said that it would review the proposed regulations. "Obviously we're pleased that the M.T.A. and the state comptroller are on the same page when it comes to improved financial reporting," he said.

    By issuing the new proposed regulations yesterday, Mr. Hevesi was returning to an issue that won him considerable publicity and praise from city officials who were against the fare increase. In recent weeks Mr. Hevesi, a Democrat from Queens, has found himself at odds with many city officials over his decision to side with Governor Pataki in his attempts to block a bond deal that would save the city $500 million a year.

    The comptroller filed the proposed regulations with the Department of State yesterday, officials said, and they will be published in the state registry early next month. Then the public, and the authority, will get 45 days to comment on the proposals. Then Mr. Hevesi can issue the final regulations, taking into account issues raised in the comment period.

    Richard L. Brodsky, a Democratic Assemblyman from Westchester County, said that he applauded the comptroller's move to issue new regulations, but said that farther-reaching change, which would require new legislation, was needed.


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

  15. #15

    Default

    September 24, 2003

    Effort to Void Transit Fare Increase Dies in Court

    By RANDY KENNEDY

    With a terse epitaph — "motion for leave to appeal denied" — the long fight to wrest fare money from turnstiles and return some of it to riders' pockets was pronounced thoroughly dead yesterday.

    New York State's highest court, the Court of Appeals, decided yesterday that it would not hear the case seeking to roll back the recent fare and toll increases, after a unanimous ruling against the lawsuit in July by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court.

    The lower court found that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority was within its rights when it raised subway and bus fares by an average of 33 percent and commuter rail fares by an average of 25 percent in May.

    The decision by the higher court ends a six-month effort by the Straphangers Campaign, a riders' advocacy group, and several elected officials to turn back the increase on the grounds that the authority had exaggerated the size of its deficit and misled the public, violating state law.

    In May and June, two State Supreme Court justices ordered rollbacks of increases for rail and bus fares and bridge and tunnel tolls, finding that the authority had engaged in deceptive practices. One justice, Louis B. York, wrote that the practices "undermined the public's confidence in the M.T.A."

    But the Appellate Division ruled that no laws had been broken, and the panel of justices added in its ruling that whether state law should be strengthened to require greater disclosure by the authority "is a political decision for the Legislature to determine."

    Since 1995, fares have been raised twice, and each time, lawsuits have failed to roll back the increases, underscoring the broad power the authority has under the state's Public Authorities Law to determine how much money it needs from riders.

    While the case ultimately had no effect on the bottom line for millions of riders — the base subway and bus fare will remain $2, up from $1.50 — the lawsuit did achieve some other goals for those who filed it, shining a particularly harsh light on the authority and its budgeting practices.

    In the months after the suit was filed, the authority moved to make substantial changes in the way it reports its finances. It named a panel of prominent outside advisers and proposed legislation that would make even more changes.

    The authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, has said that these changes were not prompted by the lawsuit or by the harsh financial reviews issued by the city and state comptrollers. But in early May he conceded to city business leaders that the authority "could have done a better job in the area of transparency."

    Yesterday, Mr. Kalikow praised the Court of Appeals' decision not to hear the case and added, "The M.T.A. board's March 2003 determination to increase fares and tolls for the first time in eight years was a difficult decision made in the best interests of our regional transportation system."

    New York's base fare is now among the highest in the country, and the percentage of the subway and bus system's operations paid not by government aid but by the fare — around 60 percent — is the highest in the country.

    Transit officials repeatedly stress that looking at the base fare is deceptive and that, as a result of MetroCard discounts, the average fare paid by riders is much lower. As of this July, the average fare was $1.26, in part because more riders have been taking advantage of 30-day unlimited-ride MetroCards for $70.

    Gene Russianoff, the staff lawyer for the Straphangers Campaign, said yesterday that he was disappointed by the lawsuit's defeat, but he added that "for the people who want the agency to be more accountable, the verdict is not in yet."

    When competing versions of the authority's reform legislation are again taken up by the State Legislature, probably next year, Mr. Russianoff said, he and others will fight for the adoption of much more stringent checks and balances than those proposed in the authority's bill.

    "The reforms in the M.T.A. bill are — I guess it would be too harsh to say they're a joke — but they're a pale imitation of what's needed," he said.


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Cab Fare Estimator
    By lovelife in forum Questions and Answers about New York City
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 14th, 2003, 12:05 PM
  2. Judge Rules Against Giuliani Plan on Sex Shops
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 11th, 2003, 10:05 AM
  3. Manhattan Strikes Back at Suburbs
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 16th, 2003, 10:06 AM
  4. Libeskind Backers Fight Back
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 16th, 2003, 05:02 AM
  5. St. Petersburg: Name's Back, Soon Its Luster
    By Edward in forum Photography and Travel
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2002, 02:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software