How to Make the MTA More Representative

By Raanan Geberer
First Published in Brooklyn Daily Eagle

The dust has settled by now, and the subway and bus fare hike is a reality. Politicians and the media are raging, pointing out that the transit agency actually has posted surpluses recently and given its executives huge bonuses. They demand that something be done to “roll back the fare hike.” But when in the history of the metropolitan area has a fare hike ever been rolled back?
Perhaps we should look at the MTA to understand why these problems exist.
Many people feel it was a big mistake to take the subways and buses out of the direct control of the city and put them under the authority of an independent agency. But Long Island and Westchester commuters have interests that are very similar to those of city transit riders. And, in my opinion, this is a good thing, because consolidation between the three main components of the MTA (New York City Transit, Long Island Railroad and MetroNorth) will help develop a unified transit system that will benefit everybody.
Instead, let us look at the nature of the MTA board. As the MTA’s own literature says, “Members are nominated by the governor, with four recommended by New York City’s mayor and one each by the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland and Putnam Counties. The board also has six rotating non-voting seats held by representatives of organized labor and the Permanent Citizens Advisory Council, which serves as a voice for users of MTA and commuter facilities. All board members are confirmed by the New York State Senate.”
First of all, I say, let’s decrease the governor’s role. Sitting in Albany, the governor can’t be expected to be a big-time expert on transit in the metropolitan area. And while having the state Senate vote on appointees seems democratic, it really isn’t — why should someone from Syracuse have a voice on what is done with the “A” train? I say, put the MTA under the direct control of the municipalities and counties that are directly affected.
And while we’re at it, why not give each borough of New York City an additional, separate vote — something that Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz has long advocated? After all, Brooklyn probably has a large a population as Rockland or Orange counties.
Now, to the makeup of the board. Glancing through the biographies of the board members, I see only a few people who have any direct experience of being involved with mass transit — the representative of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Council and one person who once ran a trucking firm. The great majority are people with experience in the financial markets, such as the Office of Management and Budget, Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs — in other words, “bean counters.”
Of course, when dealing with a public agency that has large budgets, the presence of such financial watchdogs are necessary. But why so many? If I had my way, at least half of the appointees would have to be people with direct experience in mass transit — whether planners, engineers, Transport Workers Union leaders, managers, representatives of private bus companies, and so forth. Why not put professional transit planners on the board, for example?
One final note on the representatives of organized labor: While this writer in general is a supporter of unions, the only union that should be represented here is the Transport Workers Union, the union that deals directly with transportation. Why someone from, say, the Building Trades Council should be on the MTA board doesn’t make much sense to me. Most likely, he’s there as some kind of political reward for something.
Instead, why not put a representative of the city’s community boards on the MTA board? At least they’ll be closer to the concerns of the average New Yorker.
At any rate, these are some of my thoughts about the MTA.