Comments on: Opponents already combatting the Ravitch recommendations

By: Silver endorses lesser tolls as Senate wavers :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:19:58 +0000

[...] one wants to have to do any of this,” Assemblyman Micah Kellner, who proposed his own plan a few months ago, said. “But we’re going to have to pay for the M.T.A. one way or the [...]

By: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » » What’s the better idea?

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:33:10 +0000

[...] “Raising annual fees for driver licenses to $50 would yield nearly $300 million.” – Micah Kellner, Assemblyman (D-Manhattan) [...]

By: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » » Drilling down on the driver license fee plan

Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:28:51 +0000

[...] led by Assembly rep Micah Kellner and New York City Comptroller William Thompson have proposed increased fees for car registrations and licensing fees in lieu of the controversial East River [...]

By: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » » The Ravitch Report: Where the papers stand

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:42:15 +0000

[...] Ravitch was too kind on the MTA, and the Long Island paper voices its support for the alternative licensing and registration fee increase proposal that I will get around to debating as soon as the demands of my finals allow me to: A [...]

By: Yakov

Yakov — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:45:24 +0000

First of all, even these little bites DO change behavior in the aggregate, I believe. Second, if the point of revenue (as in this case I believe) is not to reduce driving necessarily but raise money for transit, it’s not a bad thing if it doesn’t reduce driving. Witness: higher bridge tolls –> decreased driving (good) –> potentially lower revenue from tolls (bad)

By: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » » On eve of Ravitch Report, Paterson endorses plan

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:57:49 +0000

[...] mounting an offensive early, Paterson is hoping to put the plan’s detractors — such as Micah Kellner — on the defensive. “The message we keep trying to deliver is that we are in a very difficult [...]

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:40:39 +0000

With transit planning, you have to take the long view. I agree that if you raise the cost of driving, no one sells their car that very day. But if you alter the cost/reward ratio of driving, over time people will make different decisions.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:41:12 +0000

The problem/benefit–as you alluded to above–is that driving is very inelastic: if you own a car, you’re gonna drive it even if you don’t really need to. For example, I know that if I owned a car (I live in Bay Ridge) I would likely be driving to most of my shopping–even though without a car I’m perfectly self-sufficient. It’s a problem because if your goal is, say, reducing traffic and increasing livability, little tax bites here and there aren’t going to accomplish much of anything. It’s a benefit because you can soak drivers for a ton of money before you start seeing diminishing returns. The flip side of that is, well, everybody outside of Manhattan drives so the solutions mentioned in this article–all of them–are politically impossible to achieve. History has shown that state politicians are even less likely to go against the wishes of their suburban power base than those city politicians, like Kellner, who happen to represent a wealthier, more car-dependent district. Frankly, none of the plans seems achievable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what we get is a temporary band-aid that does nothing to solve the long-term financial problems.