by
NARR:
Most observers say there are three ways that the MTA can raise revenue. The agency
can raise fares, politicians can raise taxes, or both can look for corporate sponsors to get a much needed injection of cash. To explore the latter idea, the MTA board recently approved a plan for what they call a sponsorship program. Sponsorship could mean a major credit card company could pay the MTA to put the agency's logo on one of their cards. Or one company could lease all the advertising space in a single station. This is called saturation advertising and you can see it in subways now, when one company's ads dominate a car. But some politicians and critics say they're worried about the sponsorship program. Michael Hernandez of the advocacy group the Straphangers Campaign says the group thinks the agency should be getting input [to formal] from the people who use the system.
TAPE: Hernandez (00:14)
We want to know what do the riders think about having Coca Cola all over the system or all over their 42nd street station, is that an issue for riders. How much money is that going to bring in? Is it worth it to our system?
NARR:
It's unclear how much money the increased advertising would raise at this time. MTA spokesperson Douglas Sussman, who wouldn't comment on tape, says that in 2003 the agency generated 70 million dollars from advertising. He says no one at the agency thinks that the sponsorship program will bring in enough to close the gap in funding but it will at least help. Robert Paaswell directs of the Transportation Research Center at City College. He says that the MTA is wasting time looking to options like advertising when the answer to their funding woes is right under their noses
TAPE: Paaswell (00:07)
They're going to have to raise taxes and take it from general revenue. It's not a very complicated solution.
NARR:
Taxes would bring in the money that is needed, but, as far as he knows, it's not a solution that's on the table right now. Paaswell says that it's a brave politician who would suggest raising taxes, and not because New Yorkers can't afford the increase.
TAPE: Paaswell (00:20)
We can afford to subsidize our public transportation. We are choosing not to pay for it. We are directing our elected officials to not raise taxes, to not spend any public money on any
infrastructure, whether it's hospitals, schools, public transit, welfare, anything. The public wants something but they don't want to pay for it. So we're making choices and I think bad choices.
NARR:
Paaswell says he also disagrees with another idea recently put forth by Governor Pataki. The governor has proposed privatizing some of New York's roads and bridges. Although the money generated from leasing out a bridge or toll road to a private company would go back into the MTA's coffers, Paaswell says that this is more a one-time quick fix then it is a lasting solution - because businesses are more committed to the bottom line then to the upkeep that would be necessary. He also says other cities have tried privatization with very little success. London privatized its buses and now ticket prices are scheduled to go up.
Both Paaswell and Michael Hernandez of the Straphanger's Campaign say privatization won't lead to the kind of lasting revenue that the MTA needs. Hernandez says politicians must find the money to fund the system.
TAPE: Hernandez (00:14)
They need to find out where that revenue source is and not being, making decision based on what the popular expedient is. You need to do things to make sure that the city doesn't fall apart.
NARR:
For now, the MTA is moving ahead with its sponsorship program and Governor Pataki continues to investigate privatization deals. In the meantime, no one, including the agency itself, seems to know where the cash-strapped MTA will be getting the money it needs.
Sarah Dalsimer, Columbia Radio News.