Paterson chooses former leader to manage the system
MTA passengers shouldn’t expect to pay less, but Gov. David Paterson’s choice to run the agency wants to restore public trust.
What he’s done
> Walder, 48, worked for the MTA from 1983 to 1995. “He was able to help rehabilitate the system,” Gov. David Paterson said.
> As director of finance and planning in London, he created a $20 billion investment program, helped implement congestion pricing and wrote the winning bid for the 2012 Olympics.
> He implemented the Oyster smart card in London, a popular contactless payment system that operates like an E-Z Pass.
> London’s system has nine zones, with one-way fares ranging from $1.79 to $8.97. Asked whether he might implement zones here, Walder answered, “No.”
Jay Walder, who was credited with strengthening London’s transit system as its director of finance and planning from 2000 to 2007 even while raising fares there, was nominated by Gov. David Paterson to head the MTA yesterday.
Walder said the transit system faces “serious challenges” and that he will work to help restore the public’s trust in the MTA.
“There’s no question that the taxpayers and the riding public need to see and believe that they’re getting value for their money,” he said.
Walder, a Queens native who worked for the MTA from 1983 to 1995, would serve as both chairman and executive director of the MTA if he is approved by the state Senate.
“The reality is we must have a long-term financial solution,” said Walder, who rose to the rank of executive director before leaving the transit agency. “I certainly go in with my eyes open.”
The recent state bailout only covered the agency’s capital investment needs for the next two years.
After that, a new five-year capital plan could carry a $30 billion price tag. Additional fare increases are already scheduled for 2011 and 2013.
The new combined position has a six-year term and is supposed to be “sufficiently independent to be able to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions,” Walder said.
He said it would be “foolish to comment on specifics.”