The MTA has been informed (by the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA — its own advocacy group) that the subway stations in this town are in need of some attention.

There are no words to express how much obviousness this statement encompasses.

Yes, the subway stations are in need of attention. Lots of attention and on many differently levels. Attention should be paid to layout, cleanliness, safety, pest control, signage, lighting and countless things that have fallen by the wayside or disintegrated after ongoing neglect.

Did they really need this group to tell them the stations are in a deplorable state? Have they not eyes to see (the garbage, the dirt, the rats, the broken stairs, the chipped tiles, the missing signs, the out of order lifts and bathrooms, the burned out lighting). Have they not ears to hear (the unintelligible announcements not to mention the announcements that never seem to come when such a thing might be helpful, the sound of shills and panhandlers punctuated by - and I use the term loosely - musicians)? Have they not noses to smell (the piles of garbage, the puddles of urine and the unmistakable odor of throngs of New Yorkers milling about and becoming packed onto the platforms in the hot, sticky air while trains continue not to arrive)?

Sure, I know these things take time and money but you know what - the MTA habitutally wastes a staggering amount of both. The development of this report cost time and money though I am sure it was a mere drop in the budget bucket but the fact that it was deemed necessary is symptomatic of an organization that ignores whatever it can for as long as it can (they didn’t assign line managers untl last year) and then cannot manage it’s own spending. Let’s not even mention the “two sets of books” accounting procedure in their not so distant past. Oh dear - I mentioned it didn’t I? Well, never mind that now. The past is the past. Let’s keep focused on the economic flaws of today. Lest you think the flawed thinking is all on the side of the MTA, let me present some balance. The report itself is full of flawed thinking.

• Station impact fees: Wait a minute. You want to charge developers extra money to build near stations? Isn’t the idea to have housing and stations within a reasonable and useable distance to encourage use of mass transit? Why create a situation where being further away is even more economically attractive?
• Private sector partnerships: Get the BID’s and local corporations to “adopt” stations? That might fly better if they weren’t being asked to partner with the MTA (did I mention the inability to manage it’s own budget?)
• Create a Water Intrusion Task Force: As the committee looked around the stattions, they noticed a lot of water damage. But instead of fixing the aforementioned damage, they suggest the MTA should form a task force to see it again. Why? Is there something wrong with the eyesight of the Committee members?
• Rodents on the run: Rats were sighted in 7 of the stations studied. Ah. Clearly there is something wrong with the eyesight of the Committee members if they only spotted them at 7 stations.

I sure hope ‘attention’ in this case is a polite way of saying rehabilitation because some of these stations are not fit for man nor beast. Except the rodents.