For more than three decades, Richard Ravitch has been typecast.

Governor after governor has unexpectedly—at least from Mr. Ravitch’s perspective—called on the wealthy developer, lawyer and investor to play the role of the public servant tasked with saving government organizations gone broke.

He chaired the Urban Development Corporation starting in 1975; was called to help resolve New York City’s fiscal crisis later that year; and became chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 1979—all were sinking ships that Mr. Ravitch rescued, fixed or patched. Those who have worked with him say he is blunt, bright and well versed in methods of finance, and he has earned a reputation for being highly effective in pushing through reforms.

So the mere fact that Governor David Paterson called in none other than Mr. Ravitch to lead a commission on the M.T.A.’s five-year capital plan and operating budget suggests that the agency must be in dire straits.

And indeed it is.

The M.T.A. is expected to be somewhere around $17 billion short of a 2010-2014 capital plan of an expected $30 billion or so—a gap that, if unfilled, would stall numerous expansion projects, such as the Second Avenue Subway, and erode the “state of good repair” that the agency has worked so hard to meet since its nadir in the 1970’s. Without the constant investment in upkeep, transit advocates warn the deterioration of the system could be swift, inviting a return to the days of highly unreliable service.

Fueling the M.T.A.’s problems are construction costs, which have exploded at a time when the system is undergoing its first true expansion in decades. As a result, almost every single transportation infrastructure project in the city—including those outside of the M.T.A.’s purview, such as the PATH terminal downtown and Moynihan Station—is overbudget and underfunded, making the task of plugging the capital plan’s hole that much more of a daunting challenge.

On top of that are the woes of the operating budget, which is strained by plummeting tax revenues amid the rougher economy and a future jump in required debt payments from prior loans.

“Part of what we have to deal with is not just the hemorrhaging of revenues but also in 2010—that’s where we see the impact of all the borrowing,” said Elliot Sander, executive director of the M.T.A. “We inherited $6 billion of deficit from the operating budget over five years.”

So it is left to Mr. Ravitch and his commission, with members expected to be named in coming weeks, to sort through the mess and chart a viable course for the M.T.A. and State Legislature to follow.

Commissions such as these often follow a similar formula, as politicized members produce a report with a more or less predetermined outcome so as to give the commission’s creators a perceived mandate to proceed with whatever policy action they had intended, perhaps with a few tweaks.

But such a result is unlikely from Mr. Ravitch, those who know him say, as he has a well-known reputation for freely speaking his mind and fiercely defending his independence, an element considered key to his successful track record.

“He’s incredibly blunt about things, and may put some people off, but on the other hand you can depend on what Richard is saying as being what he really believes,” said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association. “He is a remarkable man.”

AS CHAIRMAN OF the M.T.A., Mr. Ravitch, now 74, often sparred publicly with those who appointed him—Governors Hugh Carey and Mario Cuomo—relishing the independence of the authority’s board.

Such was the case in 1983, when he appeared at a press conference at Grand Central Terminal in which Mr. Cuomo announced a plan to expand the M.T.A.’s board and take gubernatorial control of the agency.

Mr. Ravitch, on hand as an observer, was prodded by the press to give his position.

“I sort of hunkered down in the back,” he said in an interview. “There was a moment of truth, and I said I would not support this proposed change.”

The newspapers played up the battle; criticism followed, and Mr. Cuomo’s plan was dropped.

Under his four-year reign at the M.T.A., Mr. Ravitch introduced an array of new ways to bring money into the system, gradually rebuilding it from its unsafe, unreliable state at the time. He began the M.T.A.’s first capital plan, and helped push the inception of the various taxes that exist today to bring money into the system—including the petroleum business tax and real-estate-related taxes.

Today the situation is different in that the system is not on the brink of utter collapse; officials warn, however, that a failure to invest in upkeep could easily invite a regression to the days of faulty service. Cuts, then, are unlikely to be the defining element in whatever Mr. Ravitch and the commission recommend, as advocates and observers tend to agree that the $20 billion or so needed to rehab stations, buy new train cars and generally ensure a state of good repair is a necessity.

Furthermore, if the M.T.A. was to suspend the expansion projects to save money—between the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access and other projects, the expansions need about $5.5 billion in additional funding—their total price tags would multiply should future administrations take them up again, according to transit experts.

Thus the commission and Mr. Ravitch, above all else, will likely focus on bringing new money into the system through some combination of fares, fees and taxes.

Up for at least another glance, Mr. Ravitch said, will be some form of congestion pricing.

“We’re certainly going to look at that again—not necessarily the proposal that was before, but certainly that has to be looked at as a source of revenue,” he said.

Under the failed Bloomberg administration plan for congestion pricing, the revenue would have brought in about $4.5 billion for the capital plan, but would still have left around $13 billion to be funded in other ways.

Kathryn Wylde, CEO of the Partnership for New York City, said the business community was still very supportive of a form of congestion pricing. She also pointed to a recent M.T.A. report that gave numerous recommendations to reduce costs, including revised methods of issuing bonds and attracting construction managers.

As for a fare increase, Mr. Ravitch indicated its potential is limited in bringing in money for the capital plan because of rising operating costs, in part due to bonds taken out in recent years.

“The operating costs are going up, and any fare increase is going to have to cover the increase in operating expenses,” he said.

Transit experts say some sort of new or increased tax—likely for the metro area, but perhaps linked with statewide transportation needs—is likely to ultimately come out of the Legislature.

“What Ravitch should try to find is as broad a base mechanism as possible, so it actually is a small hit on most people,” said Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. “That would be something I think [REBNY] would look at.”

The question, from the perspective of Mr. Ravitch, is whether the public and legislators will see a necessity to put billions more into the M.T.A. at a time when the system has a relatively presentable appearance. In his time as chairman, the system’s faults made new taxes an easier sell.

“People aren’t confronting breakdowns and fires like they were,” he said. “It’s tough, but I’m going to have to make the case that if we fail to keep up with our capital expenditures, the system is going to go down the slippery slope.”