Home Fare Hikes ‘Fight the Hike’ group almost has the right message

‘Fight the Hike’ group almost has the right message

by Benjamin Kabak

Later today, New York City Council membrs Joseph Addabbo, right, and John Liu will unveil their latest anti-fare hike effort. As Liu has tried to do, unsuccessfully, in the past, the two hope that their group — Fight the Hike 08 — will succeed in convincing the MTA to avert a fare hike next year.

As part of this campaign, Addabbo penned an extensive piece in today’s Daily News that lays out the campaign’s approach. Ideally, their Website — as of this writing, just a Drupal instruction page — will feature more on how they hope to accomplish their goals. For now, we have just the Addabbo piece, and while on principle I believe their efforts to be noble, I feel that Addabbo and Liu are a bit misguided in their rhetoric.

Addabbo writes:

The cost of living is on the rise, and the state is experiencing financial difficulty, which usually jeopardizes jobs and income. The first answer to a budget deficit cannot always be to increase the cost of living for middle class people, especially without a serious improvement in service and facilities. Just recently, a survey of 50 stations by the New York City Transit Riders Council revealed that riders complained overwhelmingly about the state of disrepair of the city’s subway stations, many of which suffer from water damage, lack of proper signage and peeling paint.

New York City Transit even acknowledged the problem by proposing to include $71 million in their Capital Plan to address problem areas incrementally. Since the Bloomberg administration has already signaled that the city will not balance the MTA’s bottom line, it’s up to the state to prioritize spending in these tough fiscal times and focus funding where it is most needed, and where it’ll do the most good.

We in government need to make high quality, low cost public transportation a priority and send a message to the MTA that we expect to get what we pay for. As legislators return to Albany this week to reassess the budget, I urge them to not only act judiciously, but on behalf of middle class interests. Raising the fare should be a last resort, and I don’t believe we’re at that point.

I appreciate Addabbo’s efforts, but the middle class rhetoric is simply a councilmember’s efforts at pandering hidden in class conflict. Six months ago, Addabbo was an opponent of a congestion pricing on the grounds that the pricing plan would negatively impact the middle class in Queens who supposedly lived too far away from mass transit. The only problem with Addabbo’s argument is that those members of Queens who live too far away from mass transit and must rely on their cars aren’t really a part of the middle class. They’re a bit of the upper class who can afford congestion pricing and choose to live in non-transit friendly areas of New York City.

Again, Addabbo is relying on class rhetoric, and while his argument is more valid when it applies to the transit system, he can’t have his cake and eat it too. If Addabbo is serious about funding transit, then congestion pricing will have to a part of the equation. Raising the fare should be a last resort, but with the city and state eschewing their MTA responsibilities and the economy worsening by the day, the MTA has not choice but to turn to this last resort.

Until our politicians are willing to sacrifice something — whether it be free roads or higher taxes or something else out of the box entirely — the MTA will continue to rely on fare hikes for more funding. It seems to be the only resort these days.

You may also like

6 comments

Josh August 19, 2008 - 11:10 am

“The only problem with Addabbo’s argument is that those members of Queens who live too far away from mass transit and must rely on their cars aren’t really a part of the middle class. They’re a bit of the upper class who can afford congestion pricing and choose to live in non-transit friendly areas of New York City.”

I’m not a big fan of class rhetoric, but I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there are middle class and even lower class Queens residents who aren’t well-served by transit (by the subway, certainly).

That said, Addabbo and Liu aren’t providing anything in the way of a solution here. Clearly more money is required to keep the system in good working order – it’s got to come from somewhere, right? They don’t seem to be suggesting much.

Reply
Todd August 19, 2008 - 1:56 pm

I am, by definition, middle-class. Even if they doubled the fares, The MTA would still be much more affordable then any other transit option.

As legislators return to Albany this week to reassess the budget, I urge them to not only act judiciously, but on behalf of middle class interests.

The legislators are currently attempting to come up with a budget that slows/cuts spending growth. I seriously doubt that this is when they’ll choose to pull out extra MTA funds.

Reply
Emily August 20, 2008 - 6:00 pm

I’m not sure I follow your argument about Queens residents. Regardless of Addabbo’s motives, he’s right about the fact that a lot of Queens residents would be adversly affected by congestion pricing. They are the folks that are supposed to be kept off Manhattan streets by the project, the not terribly well-off people who don’t live near the subway and, thus, currently drive. That’s what it’s supposed to do, I can’t imagine how it would accomplish anything else.

What is Congestion Pricing really aiming at accomplishing, aside from being a new revenue stream for the city? Of course, most people think it would have accomplished only that one thing, but isn’t the stated goal also the reduction of traffic in Manhattan? So who is going to be prevented from driving in? The folks in Queens that live near the subway? They’re not driving in anyway. It’s the other residents that do not (which is a good half of Queens, mostly not super wealthy). The very well-off from distant suburbs will, of course, continue to drive because they can afford it (surely in greater numbres now that traffic is better). It’s exactly the non-adjacent-to-the-subway middle class residents of the other half of Queens that are supposed to get kept out of Manhattan.

I mean… wasn’t that the plan? If not, then I honestly don’t follow. Who did we think Congestion Pricing will keep off our streets? Not the wealthy Manhattan residents, who don’t drive anyway. Not the outer borough residents who live near transit who don’t drive anyway. Not the affluent suburban residents to whom the surcharge is no big deal and who will drive anyway. Umm… who does that leave, exactly?

Final thought: if the city gets money from every car driving in under Congestion Pricing, does the city want, umm, let’s see… fewer cars driving in or more cars driving in? So then which do you think the politicians will want to encourage? And which would working on improving transit encourage? So which improvements would be the first to go?

Reply
Alon Levy August 21, 2008 - 1:56 pm

a lot of Queens residents would be adversly affected by congestion pricing.

Define “A lot.” Citywide, only a few percent of outer borough commuters drive into Manhattan. Even in Staten Island, only about 20,000 people, 5% of the borough’s population, drive to Manhattan. In Queens it’s even lower. I don’t know if 1-2% of Queens’ population is a lot to you or not. To me it’s not.

if the city gets money from every car driving in under Congestion Pricing, does the city want, umm, let’s see… fewer cars driving in or more cars driving in?

This just doesn’t make sense. What you say is true for every revenue stream. For example, liberal populists often suggest increasing taxes on the rich; by the same argument, that would encourage the government to want the rich to earn more. Conversely, the super-rich push for flat taxes, which by your argument would make the government indifferent to how much they earn, because it would get the same revenues either way. What’s true for congestion fees should be true for income taxes, shouldn’t it?

Reply
Emily August 21, 2008 - 8:03 pm

Hmm, OK, so, assuming your numbers are correct, 1-2% of Queens residents would be adversly affected. Fine, but then… who are we keeping off Manhattan streets with congestion pricing? Manhattanites already don’t drive, wealthy suburbanites won’t care and will just pay and drive anyway. The plan calls for some people somewhere around here to be kept out, the people who can’t afford the fee. Where are they? They are the non-affluent who are currently driving due to lack of good mass transit. Where do they live, sir? Sure, not only in Queens, but wherver they are, they’re getting screwed.

Either only 1-2% of people will be adversly affected OR congestion pricing will actually have a positive effect on traffic. It’s obvious that you can’t have both. If we don’t price people out of driving in then traffic will not get better.

“This just doesn’t make sense. What you say is true for every revenue stream.”

Nope, only some of them that share a certain characteristic. Would you like me to give examples, or is it obvious?

“Conversely, the super-rich push for flat taxes, which by your argument would make the government indifferent to how much they earn, because it would get the same revenues either way.”

Sir, I assume you misspoke here because you couldn’t have possibly been suggesting that a flat tax means that everyone pays the same amount. But on the off-chance that you didn’t misspeak, I will explain. A flat tax is a tax structure where everyone pays the same percentage of the money they make. If you make more money, you pay more money. 10% of 1 dollar is 10 cents. 10% of a $1,000,000 is $100,000. If you make 1 dollar a year, you pay 10 cents a year. If you make more then, well…

So of course it would not get the “same revenues either way”, the more people earn the more they will pay in taxes.

Does that make sense? That’s how percentages work.

Reply
Alon Levy August 22, 2008 - 1:42 am

I know how percentages work, thank you very much. When the tax is flat, the government gets the same revenue no matter how income is distributed, since every chunk of income gets taxed at the same rate. When it’s progressive, transferring a chunk of income from a rich person to a poorer person means the government gets to tax that chunk of money at a lower rate, so it gets less revenue.

So if your argument is right, then progressive taxes should encourage more income inequality, since that would increase government revenue. So progressive organizations should be pushing for a flat tax, while the rich should be pushing for progressive taxation. But of course that’s completely ridiculous, which makes me question why liberal populists use this argument for any revenue stream that isn’t the income tax.

As for the 1-2% thing, these people already make far more than most people. On average, New Yorkers who own cars make about twice as much as those who don’t; this remains consistent across boroughs and neighborhoods. But of course you knew that, since you’ve obviously thought out your case well enough that you made sure to read the city’s congestion pricing fact sheet, check its references, and deal with the points they raise.

Most of the traffic into Manhattan doesn’t come from the outer boroughs, but from the suburbs. From that population, a few percent can be quite significant. Just 5% of Long Islanders equal 140 thousand cars crossing the East River twice every day, mostly on the free bridges. Some of them won’t care; they’ll pay $2,000 a year for the privilege of giving everyone in Manhattan asthma. Others will, because the upper middle-class cares about costs just like everyone else. The world isn’t divided into a dichotomy of rich, who have infinite amounts of money, and poor, who can’t spend a dime more than they do already. Increasing the cost of something reduces the demand for it.

Reply

Leave a Comment