The Metropolitan Transportation Authority moves 8.6 million passengers daily across 736 stations. It employs 74,087 workers and spends $16.7 billion annually. Yet nobody is in charge. As the MTA prepares a midsummer plan to “restructure” itself, one question arises: Does the public-authority structure, which has governed transit for 51 years, work?
The MTA is different from most local government. In firefighting or policing, an elected official, usually the mayor, appoints a commissioner. If the commissioner fails, the mayor can replace her. If the mayor fails, voters can replace the mayor. Checks and balances come from the City Council.
The MTA came out of the late 1960s, when Gotham was sliding toward its 1975 debt default. The city couldn’t manage its transit system. Starting in 1968, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and the Legislature created the MTA, essentially a nonprofit corporation, so subways, buses and rail could benefit from the profits minted by Robert Moses’ Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, folded into the new entity.
The MTA has an independent board, made up of individuals who nominally represent the state (with the most representation), the city and suburbs. The governor and Senate approve board members and the chairman.
Public authorities supposedly offered three advantages. First, like private businesses, they could attract top talent. Second, the authorities, unlike government, would be self-sustaining, since they generated revenues independent of taxes (in this case, the new bridge and tunnel tolls). Third, the board structure insulates it from political pressures, enabling officials to make tough decisions, such as cutting labor costs.
The MTA falls short on all three counts.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the New York Post
______________________
Nicole Gelinas is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor at City Journal. Follow her on Twitter here. This piece was adapted from City Journal.
This piece originally appeared in New York Post