Thursday, October 21, 2010
(New York -- Andrea Bernstein, Transportation Nation) Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo has been a bit of a cipher when it comes to transportation and transit. He's bemoaned MTA inefficiencies, called into question an employer-tax imposed last year to help bail out the MTA, and said fares shouldn't go up. But he's said little about financing the authority over the long term.
Today, in his most extensive remarks to date on transit, he didn't add much.
The occasion was the release of his 273-page urban agenda, which by the way, did NOT include transit. It was the kind of "urban agenda" you'd hear in the 1990's: anti-poverty, affordable housing, minority jobs. (By contrast, Shaun Donovan, the current HUD Secretary -- Cuomo's former job -- has made sustainable, walking, transit-rich communities a major plank in his agenda.)
But all the journalists there, pretty much, wanted to talk transit. In fact, I didn't raise the subject. A Daily News reporter did.
"There's going to be a need for more efficiency," Cuomo said of the MTA. "More effectiveness, better management. You can't have over $500 million in overtime. You can't have thousands of people making over $100,000 a year . I believe the Governor should be accountable for the MTA."
My turn. But what about funding for the MTA? Does he support congestion pricing? [As Mayor Bloomberg does?] Bridge tolls? [As Lt. Governor Richard Ravitch does?]
"Congestion pricing was proposed," Cuomo parried. "It was discussed. It was basically rejected by the legislature. I don't know that there's been any change in opinion. I think it's moot. I understand the concept. I understand that it was rejected. I don't think it would pass if it came up again, unless something changed."
Without offering specifics, he added. "There's going to be a number of revenue raisers. The instinct is going to be to say 'more money more money more money.' I understand that. Part of the discipline I want to bring is a fiscal discipline to the state and the MTA. The answer can't always be more money."
But then Melissa Russo of WNBC Channel 4 asked (I'm paraphrasing): how could he say, if it didn't happen, it won't happen? What about all the other things he wants to happen -- like government reform? Isn't the problem that the legislature hasn't made them happen?