(The following article by Randy Kennedy was posted on the New York Times website on September 24.)
NEW YORK — With a terse epitaph — “motion for leave to appeal denied” — the long fight to wrest fare money from turnstiles and return some of it to riders’ pockets was pronounced thoroughly dead yesterday.
New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, decided yesterday that it would not hear the case seeking to roll back the recent fare and toll increases, after a unanimous ruling against the lawsuit in July by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court.
The lower court found that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority was within its rights when it raised subway and bus fares by an average of 33 percent and commuter rail fares by an average of 25 percent in May.
The decision by the higher court ends a six-month effort by the Straphangers Campaign, a riders’ advocacy group, and several elected officials to turn back the increase on the grounds that the authority had exaggerated the size of its deficit and misled the public, violating state law.
In May and June, two State Supreme Court justices ordered rollbacks of increases for rail and bus fares and bridge and tunnel tolls, finding that the authority had engaged in deceptive practices. One justice, Louis B. York, wrote that the practices “undermined the public’s confidence in the M.T.A.”
But the Appellate Division ruled that no laws had been broken, and the panel of justices added in its ruling that whether state law should be strengthened to require greater disclosure by the authority “is a political decision for the Legislature to determine.”
Since 1995, fares have been raised twice, and each time, lawsuits have failed to roll back the increases, underscoring the broad power the authority has under the state’s Public Authorities Law to determine how much money it needs from riders.
While the case ultimately had no effect on the bottom line for millions of riders ? the base subway and bus fare will remain $2, up from $1.50 ? the lawsuit did achieve some other goals for those who filed it, shining a particularly harsh light on the authority and its budgeting practices.
In the months after the suit was filed, the authority moved to make substantial changes in the way it reports its finances. It named a panel of prominent outside advisers and proposed legislation that would make even more changes.
The authority’s chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, has said that these changes were not prompted by the lawsuit or by the harsh financial reviews issued by the city and state comptrollers. But in early May he conceded to city business leaders that the authority “could have done a better job in the area of transparency.”
Yesterday, Mr. Kalikow praised the Court of Appeals’ decision not to hear the case and added, “The M.T.A. board’s March 2003 determination to increase fares and tolls for the first time in eight years was a difficult decision made in the best interests of our regional transportation system.”
New York’s base fare is now among the highest in the country, and the percentage of the subway and bus system’s operations paid not by government aid but by the fare ? around 60 percent ? is the highest in the country.
Transit officials repeatedly stress that looking at the base fare is deceptive and that, as a result of MetroCard discounts, the average fare paid by riders is much lower. As of this July, the average fare was $1.26, in part because more riders have been taking advantage of 30-day unlimited-ride MetroCards for $70.
Gene Russianoff, the staff lawyer for the Straphangers Campaign, said yesterday that he was disappointed by the lawsuit’s defeat, but he added that “for the people who want the agency to be more accountable, the verdict is not in yet.”
When competing versions of the authority’s reform legislation are again taken up by the State Legislature, probably next year, Mr. Russianoff said, he and others will fight for the adoption of much more stringent checks and balances than those proposed in the authority’s bill.
“The reforms in the M.T.A. bill are — I guess it would be too harsh to say they’re a joke — but they’re a pale imitation of what’s needed,” he said.