Why Is the M.T.A. Always in Trouble? He points out that the M.T.A. is hardly alone in its troubles: 90 percent of transit systems have raised fares and/or cut service in the past year. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is struggling to fill a sudden budget gap of $400 million, voted to approve a slate of cuts, including phasing out free student fares, reducing or ending service on dozens of bus lines and eliminating two subway lines, the W and the Z. The current financial crisis came up quickly as expected revenues plummeted. For riders, the M.T.A. seems to be in perpetual trouble, with threats of fare increases and service cuts even in good times. A 7.5 percent fare increase is already scheduled for 2011. Strong union contracts and an aging infrastructure make cost control challenging. What savings and efficiencies might be achieved immediately, and what cuts need to be done in the out years? Underfunded Since the 1940s Joshua B. Freeman is professor of history at Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He is the author of "Working-Class New York: Life and Labor since World War II" and "In Transit: The Transport Workers Union in New York City, 1933 1966." No modern mass transit system can effectively operate without substantial subsidies. Ever since New York City took over the bus and subway system in the 1940s it has been chronically underfunded, with the situation getting worse in recent decades. The M.T.A."s chronic inability to come up with believable, accurate financial forecasts suggests a need for a house cleaning. The only possible solution to the perpetual transit crisis is increased government funding. The federal, state and local governments must work together to shift subsidies away from road travel and other high energy transportation systems to more efficient ones, like trains, buses and subways, while making sure that businesses and real estate owners who benefit from mass transit pay their fair share. Service cuts make no sense. They will undo much of the progress the M.T.A. has made in recent years in attracting riders and penalize those who did not cause the current mess. While the agency has a point in arguing that the city should contribute toward the cost of carrying school children, its threat to cut off their free fares is yet another political stunt of the sort that has undermined public backing for the agency. Read more... No doubt the M.T.A. could cut some of its very large administrative costs. I would start by firing the people who decided to challenge in court the award that resulted from arbitration with the Transport Workers Union (to which the M.T.A. had enthusiastically agreed), a political charade, bound to fail, that postponed a realistic reckoning with the agency budget and needlessly alienated the work force. The chronic inability of the M.T.A. to come up with believable, accurate financial forecasts suggests a broader house cleaning may be in order. Transit workers have dirty, difficult, dangerous jobs, for which they get reasonably good pay and benefits. If we are going to start cutting overly generous compensation, let's begin by putting higher city and state taxes on those in the financial industry who tanked the economy, leading to the MT.A."s problems. We can work down from there. It will take quite some time to get to transit workers. Get Smart With Labor Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute City Journal, is author of "After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street - and Washington." Seven months ago, the state-run Metropolitan Transportation Authority won a $2.1 billion bailout. Today, it is preparing to make the same "draconian" service cuts that it threatened last year. The problem is that New York's labor costs are unsustainable and consume money for physical investments. The deficit is a leadership deficit. Powerful unions cannot continue to enjoy outdated compensation and rule packages at the expense of riders and New York's economic future. If the authority's costs had kept up with inflation during the last half-decade, the M.T.A. would not face big deficits today. Instead, labor costs have increased more than 40 percent, driven by pension and health care benefits. Next year, pensions and health care will cost the authority nearly $2.2 billion, more than one-fifth of its cash operating expenses. Debt costs are up, too, and the reason for so much debt is that labor costs require so much cash. These problems are not temporary - caused by the recession - but indefinite, caused by poor political decisions. The authority's unionized workers in New York City can retire as early as 55 with generous health benefits. Long Island Rail Road benefits are legendary. This is not compensation for low wages. Average pay for the authority's city union members is more than $64,000. Subway and bus workers recently won an 11.5 percent raise over three years, costing the M.T.A. $193 million in 2010, more than service cuts will save. Similar generosity at state government is why Albany had to take away $143 million of the authority's money for its own deficit. Work rules, too, add costs. Immediately, the authority cannot do much about these costs, which are contractual. M.T.A. chief Jay Walder is cutting the non-union budget, including, possibly, 10 percent pay cuts, and there's plenty more to do administratively. "It's apparent to me that we don't operate in a way that ensures that every taxpayer dollar that we receive is being used as effectively as possible," Walder said Wednesday. But administrative cuts are not enough to avoid public pain. Longer term, it comes down to political leadership from Gov. David Paterson, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and lawmakers. Skilled workers should be paid fairly, and current workers have a right to the pensions that Albany has promised them. But powerful unions cannot continue to enjoy outdated compensation and rule packages at the expense of riders and New York's economic future. Increase State Support Neysa Pranger, director of public affairs at the Regional Plan Association, has been involved in several statewide efforts to finance transportation needs. The region's transit system is in hot water again. An under-performing payroll tax, greater than expected operating expenses and cuts in state aid have turned the M.T.A. into the perennial Grinch, with cuts to service and student transit passes. Where do we go from here? The M.T.A. will meet again in early 2010 after a round of public hearings to approve or modify Wednesday's actions. Here are some ideas. First, the city and state should pitch in to cover student transit passes. While the city's contribution has remained stable since an agreement between the M.T.A., city and state split the burden equally amongst the three entities in 1995, the state's portion has slipped and the M.T.A. has had to make a larger and larger percentage of the cost. Second, the M.T.A. must find its own internal savings. Jay Walder, the authority's chairman, on Wednesday proposed a 10 percent salary reduction to all the non-union employees and a commitment to "take the place apart" to find savings in the coming year. He should expedite this process. But much like other proposals on the table, these actions will not be enough to close the gap on their own. Third, the state and city must not give up on finding a long term source of revenue to finance transit expansion and operating needs. At the climate change talks in Copenhagen, Mayor Bloomberg floated the notion reviving variable tolling on the city's bridges. While this idea has encountered many obstacles in the recent past, tolling is being embraced around the globe as a sensible user fee system. Lastly, the House of Representatives on Wednesday marked up bills for a second round of stimulus funding aimed at saving and creating jobs. Part of this provision will allow transit agencies to use a small portion of these funds on operations. While cities must ultimately be responsible for supporting transit operations, a one-shot provision to keep buses and subways running in a struggling economy should be considered. Transit Troubles Everywhere Paul Larrousse is the director of the National Transit Institute in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. He has been a general manager of transit systems in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The financial situation facing the New York M.T.A. is not unique in the transit industry given the recession and the revenue shortfalls in the public sector. The is no quick or simple fix to this problem. The American Public Transportation Association reported that 90 percent of transit systems have raised fares and/or cut service in the past year. Budget shortfalls are reported by the transit industry on a daily basis. The aging of the transit workforce raises tough pension and health care issues. Cutting service and raising fares are always the least desirable options, but for many systems weathering the downturn there are no other options. Adding new technologies, improved vehicles or system upgrades may be help improve efficiencies. But these efforts will not, in and of themselves, close the huge budget gaps. Further, these solutions also require financial investments and may take a long time to put in place. Many people say that the solution lies in re-negotiating transit labor contracts. The unions are aware of the industry's problems and have not been unresponsive to the current economic situation. But the transit workforce is rapidly aging, and that presents issues in funding current and future benefits like pensions and health care. Also, since most transit workers are public employees, the laws governing public sector employment can constrain the ability to change labor agreements.