Comments on: Fate of NYC public transportation could be decided today

By: Congestion fee plan could lead to a $767 million MTA outlay « Second Ave. Sagas | Blogging the NYC Subways

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:05:13 +0000

[...] and plan formulation has dragged on through the last few months, I’ve diligently noted that the congestion fee will drastically alter the state of public transportation in New York City. For better or worse, more people will flock to the subways and buses while more money should flow [...]

By: iheartmanhattan

iheartmanhattan — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:33:49 +0000

I agree, why should we pay for their convinces

By: As the congestion fee goes, so goes New York City « Second Ave. Sagas | Blogging the NYC Subways

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:25:44 +0000

[...] options, has been rejected by the apparently All-Knowing Sheldon Silver, the fate of the $576 million grant the federal government had planned to award New York City is unknown. The State Assembly is [...]

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:43:02 +0000

I agree that it would have been far better to add mass transit capacity first. Unfortunately, New York missed that opportunity long ago. The need for the Second Avenue Subway was recognized before the Great Depression, and we still don’t have it. Not only that, the full line isn’t even funded yet.

There’s no chance that the legislature will fund this kind of infrastructure out of general tax revenues, and the MTA is already far too indebted to go into hock any more than they already are. So either congestion pricing is needed as a revenue source, or these large projects simply won’t get built.

By: Senate, Assembly debating congestion fee into the evening « Second Ave. Sagas | Blogging the NYC Subways

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:17:35 +0000

[...] Contact Me « Fate of NYC public transportation could be decided today [...]

By: danberkman

danberkman — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:41:03 +0000

Benjamin,

Um. Actually no. The mayor wants to use the money from the Federal treasurey to improve transit BEFORE congestion pricing is implimented. Those words have actually come out of his mouth on several occasions. Also, By your argument, we shouldn’t do anything because the gains won’t initially be that big. Sounds like a great plan, do nothing until we can do the perfect no muss no fuss thing. You can wait till congestion pricing comes with a free pony, but for now, I’m on board.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:27:23 +0000

Congestion Pricing is advertised as a panacea. It is though, at best, a very small first step in improvement of mass transit that is long overdue. With several subway lines already saturated, with the 2nd Avenue subway a long way off, what makes people think that a few cars and trucks off the roads and a few hundred million dollars extra in tolls each year is going to amount to any meaningful improvement in mass transit (and therefore any meaningful improvement to the air quality)? When London implemented its own congestion pricing scheme, it put the increased mass transit into place BEFORE it launched the congestion pricing. Here we want to do it backwards.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:10:24 +0000

Not quite over yet:
Recall that NYC had a $4.4 Billion budget surplus. Bloomberg saw fit to kick $200 million of that to transit.

I think Bloomberg is rather cynically manipulating a lot of us with spectres of $3 fares (announced as a possibility after CP proposed), failure to complete SAS, the end of the world as we know it if CP isn’t passed immediately . . . and conveniently, if not passed RIGHT NOW we’ll lose $500MM.

Anyway, as I say, I like CP but I thinks Bloomberg’s threats and tactics are BS.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:56:20 +0000

In all fairness, I think the Senate and Assembly were placed in a tight spot on this. I am 100% in favor of CP; the devil, however, is in the details.

Bloomberg waited until the last minute to put an actual bill before the legislature, and has been using this $500MM as a cudgel to get it pounded through without much negotiation.

I think the Senate is on the right track. CP is definitely the way to go, but is Bloomberg’s plan perfect? The legislature has a role to play in this as well. I’ve talked to several officials in both houses, and it brings me back to what I view as Bloomberg’s authoritarian streak.

One example: I don’t thing the net increase on the Hudon River commuters (+$2) will be enough to change anyone’s behavior.

Ultimately, we absolutely need CP and a designated stream of additional transit funding; I’d like to see some assurance that the City and State aren’t going to cut their funding for transit once this is in place.

Rant over!