"Put the City in the Driver's Seat"

December 20, 2005
Op-Ed Contributor
By HENRY J. STERN

ARE New York's subways and buses running this morning? Is the Transport Workers Union on strike? When this article went to press, New Yorkers did not know the answers to these questions. They did know, however, that the system that got us to this dismal state of affairs is broken and seemingly beyond repair.

And one way to help fix it is to grant New York City greater control over its subways and buses. After all, isn't a city with more than eight million people and a $50 billion budget capable of making decisions about mass transit within its own borders?

As it is, city transit riders pay more of the cost of their rides, while the commuter railroads get higher state subsidies. For example, subway passengers pay 58.9 percent of what the ride costs the authority, whereas Long Island Rail Road commuters pay only 47.1 percent of the cost of their rides. Moreover, revenues from tolls on city bridges and tunnels are disproportionately allocated to the suburbs under an obsolete and unjust formula adopted when revenues were far lower.

The New York State Legislature created the precursor to the authority in 1965, and within a few years, the city's subway and bus lines were transferred to the state, because the city could no longer afford the operating deficits the system incurred.

But times have changed, and the city should now take back control of its own subways and buses. Sure, there are obstacles to total local autonomy. For instance, the city and its suburbs are inexorably geographically linked. Not only do we have Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road coming into the city, but we also have a network of bus lines that carry people from Westchester and Nassau Counties to the five boroughs and back every day. There are also many bond obligations that the authority has incurred both for suburban and railway cars and capital improvements. Untangling these obligations would be difficult if not impossible, and would leave the city with a substantial additional debt burden.

But these issues are small compared with the greater problem, which is that New York City has next to no say in running the authority and does not receive its fair share of transit revenue.
Under state law, of the 23 board members, the governor appoints six, including the chairman. The rest of them are designated by other public officials - the mayor of the City of New York has four spots to fill, the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester recommend one voting member each. Recently four exurban counties were added to the mix: Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland and Orange. Each has a representative with one-quarter of a vote. Six nonvoting members are selected by unions and riders councils.

The result is that New York City, the source of most of the authority's revenue, is in the frustrating position of being a permanent minority on the board. Although the city has four votes, it is in no position to make policy on anything, as the city's representatives are easily outvoted. Even the most minor local issues require the chairman's consent to be considered. Rudy Washington, a former deputy mayor and a board member during the Giuliani administration, expressed repeated irritation with the situation, in which city representatives had only minimal influence over the authority's policies.

There are several possible solutions to this problem: One is to require a supermajority for the board to take action. This pattern is followed in the Hudson River Park Trust, a state-city agency (of which I am a board member) that is building and managing a linear park along the Hudson River in Manhattan. Under this formula, consent of the city as well as the state would be required for decisions involving city transit.

Another would be to empower the existing board committee on New York City transit with a majority of members appointed by the mayor, to make decisions on local matters, subject only to being overruled by a supermajority of the board. The committee would have a staff and the power to conduct public hearings. Either approach would require amendment of the Public Authorities Law, which would need legislative approval.

An easier solution lies with Gov. George Pakaki's successor. When the new governor takes office in January 2007, he can appoint a new authority chairman who will agree to enter into a power-sharing arrangement with the mayor and his four representatives.

New York City is entitled to as much self-government as practical. Although cities are by law creatures of the states, it is right and fair for them to be empowered to do all that is reasonable, on the principles of local self-determination and avoiding taxation without representation. Federal laws call for maximum feasible participation by the poor in decisions that affect them. The City of New York deserves no lesser consideration.

Henry J. Stern, a former New York City parks commissioner, is now head of New York Civic, a public interest organization.