I
hate to be the bearer of bad news, but chances are we will see another fare
hike on Metro-North in the coming months.
Not
that any elected official would endorse such a plan (at least not before the
November elections), but once again Connecticut is not totally in control of
its financial destiny when it comes to our trains.
True,
fare increases in Connecticut must be initiated by the state regardless of what
NY does to its riders, but the financial numbers speak for themselves.
We
are tied to NY’s operations by an antiquated contract going back 30 years. The cost of running “our” trains is born by
both CT and NY, and those costs are soaring from $70 million a year to $110
million thanks to remedial track work and expected contract settlements (with four
years of retroactive pay hikes).
How
will Connecticut make up this $40 million deficit? There are only three choices: raise fares, cut service or find that money
elsewhere. The latter two choices are
either undesirable or impossible, leaving the prospect (necessity?) of fare
increases.
After
a year of slower, unreliable and often-disrupted service, it’s hard to explain
to commuters they should be paying more… especially in an election year. So when the rumored necessity of a fare hike
was floated last week, Governor Malloy expressed outrage and
bewilderment.
But
our governor and his Dept of Transportation knew darn well this was
coming. They’re the ones who pushed
Metro-North for badly needed track work after derailments and deaths.
Who did they think would pay for that?
And one wonders… does CDOT ever audit Metro-North’s ever-increasing
budgets and bills to our state?
Fares
in Connecticut are already the highest in the US because our subsidy of those
fares is the lowest. Upstate lawmakers
who dominate our legislature loathe the idea of subsidizing fat-cat investment
bankers’ trips to their high-paying jobs in New York City. But they have no trouble taxing their
incomes, do they?
Fairfield
County residents represent 26% of our state’s population but pay 40% of its
taxes. Legislators made us subsidize Adriaen’s Landing ($770 million) in Hartford and the UConn football stadium ($90+ million), neither of which we
are ever likely to use. So why can’t they keep residing in Fairfield County
affordable by keeping Metro-North safe, on-time and affordable.
Since
2012 we’ve already had 12% fare hikes, thanks in part to Governor Malloy using
rail fares to balance his budget (a move I called that more of a tax on commuters than anything else.)
The
good news is that a fare increase in Connecticut requires 90 days notice and public hearings.
And with the November elections just weeks away, no right minded
politician will pull that trigger.
Mind
you, it was now-GOP nominee Tom Foley who recently told reporters he thought we
in Connecticut spend too much subsidizing mass
transit, so who
knows? It should be an interesting
campaign season and my hope is that Metro-North will be a much debated topic.
2 comments:
The Stamford Advocate editorial calling for commuters not to bear the cost of the increase was another exercise in silliness. If Metro North is spending more, whether on safety, capital, repairs or operating costs, its got to come from somewhere. The paper, like the candidates, engages in wishful thinking as if there is a source other that (1) subsidies or (2) fares.
One way or another, we're paying.
I think the problem is that Metro North is viewed as being a company when it is not. CDOT's role in funding projects and service is CT is also not understood by the average commuter.
Post a Comment