Home MTA EconomicsDoomsday Budget Assessing the new MTA funding plan

Assessing the new MTA funding plan

by Benjamin Kabak

As transit advocates and State Senators have a chance to digest the latest MTA funding plan, two questions have continued to pop up: Does this latest plan have a chance to pass the Senate? Does it accomplish what it needs to accomplish?

Unfortunately for transit advocates, these two questions often lead to different answers. We want to see a solid commitment to mass transit; we want to see measures to return the streets to pedestrians and transit; we want to discourage the car-owning minority in New York City from unnecessary driving.

In answer to the question of support among advocates, Ben Fried at Streetsblog comes down firmly on the side of no. He outlines his five reasons why this plan doesn’t do what it should:

  1. Raising tolls on MTA crossings while keeping East and Harlem River bridges free gives car commuters and truckers even more incentive to detour across city streets to the free crossings. Neighborhoods like Downtown Brooklyn, Long Island City, Williamsburg and the Lower East Side that are already pulverized by traffic will see things get worse.
  2. Raising fees on car ownership through higher registration and licensing fees does nothing to discourage car use, and may actually encourage people to drive more in order to get more bang for their buck. Using tolls or congestion fees to price driving would have the opposite effect.
  3. Raising the cost of car sharing, rentals and taxis makes it tougher to live without a car. And, like higher ownership fees, increasing these one-time charges encourages renters to maximize their driving. Congestion pricing or tolls are far superior.
  4. Unlike private motorists taxi drivers faced with higher fees will increase their driving. Why? Since passengers will choose to ride less, given the higher fare, cabbies will have to drive more to recoup the flat fee they pay to operate a taxi.
  5. Using cab fees to pay for highway and bridge projects outside of the city transfers wealth from the dense, environmentally sustainable city to the car-dependent suburbs. If anything, taxes on cabs should fund the city bridges and streets used by those cabs.

There’s not much left to add to Fried’s analysis. He hits all the key issues and the complaints that I’ve had with the plan — poorly thought-out licensing fees, encouraging driving — are reflected in Fried’s word.

So then if we’re going to settle for a less-than-stellar pro-transit funding plan, does it have the political support to pass muster in the Senate? The answer is maybe, according to Elizabeth Benjamin.

If the Senate Democrats were hoping to capture support among the city’s Republican senators with their latest MTA bailout plan, the early returns are not promising, the DN’s Glenn Blain reports.

Of the three, only Sen. Frank Padavan of Queens seemed open to supporting the plan. Brooklyn Sen. Martin Golden and Staten Island Sen. Andrew Lanza both said they haven’t yet had the opportunity to review the new plan in detail (as of last night, it existed only in the form of a concept and had not yet been drafted into a bill).

But upon hearing the details as they were presented to reporters by the Senate Democrats’ spokesman Austin Shafran, both Golden and Lanza expressed misgivings about the proposal – especially its reliance on a payroll tax. “I just don’t see how I could vote for that type of a tax increase again into the city of New York after what they’ve already done with the tax increase in this budget,” Golden said Monday night.

That’s not a positive prognosis for the bill really. It doesn’t really line up with what transit advocates want, and it doesn’t seem have to the support it may need. Once again, the State Senate has seemingly failed to deliver, and even if this bill passes, it’s tough to say that it addresses the MTA’s long-term funding needs. Where is the political will when we need it most?

You may also like

8 comments

Andy April 21, 2009 - 5:02 pm

Other issues aside (such and incentives etc), as I understand it the ravitch plan provided for about $2B annual in revenues to MTA. This is less – but not by much. Given that, how does this not address the funding needs of the MTA? thanks

Reply
Benjamin Kabak April 21, 2009 - 5:37 pm

Here’s my take on it: The Ravitch plan provided for dedicated funding. This new plan requires the MTA to split the funds with upstate projects. The Ravitch plan covered all of the MTA’s deficit and set aside money for the capital plan. This new plan covers most of the deficit and doesn’t appear to have anything set aside for the capital plan.

In the end, if the MTA can take the service cuts off the table and reduce the fare hike, I’ll be happy in the short term. But the city needs a long-term solution or else we’ll be reliving this drama year in and year out.

Reply
Andy April 21, 2009 - 5:54 pm

thanks – bear with me I am being dense, but how does the new plan not save for the capital plan? Sure it’s less – but not alot right?

Reply
Benjamin Kabak April 21, 2009 - 6:11 pm

It’s less enough to basically preclude capital investment. By lowering revenue from ~$2.1 billion to about $1.6 billion, the MTA loses out on $500 million per year that could have gone to the capital campaign.

Those are rough numbers, by the way, but I think that is approximately what the difference ends up being.

Reply
Cap'n Transit April 21, 2009 - 7:34 pm

I don’t quite get Benjamin’s article. Isn’t the point of this plan to get votes from the “Fare Hike Four” so that Smith can pass something without giving the Republicans any concessions?

Reply
rhywun April 21, 2009 - 8:53 pm

Every time you take a cab you’re helping to pay largely-Republican upstate’s road debt. So yeah, they’re getting something too.

Reply
nyctaxiphoto April 21, 2009 - 11:41 pm

Thanks again, great points made, I’m gonna have to link to this article sometime this week, thanks for being a good source of info, so hard to come by these days.

Reply
Grumblings abound concerning latest funding plan :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog April 22, 2009 - 11:25 am

[…] Malcolm Smith would have to pick up four members of the state G.O.P. Senate contingent. As we learned last night, though, right now Republicans are opposed to the tax plan as well with maybe one — Frank Padavan […]

Reply

Leave a Comment