Comments on: Why transit matters in New York City

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:57:47 +0000

Some people in Long Island have actually suggested that – it turns out money flows up the river in this state. In the city people tend to want to secede without the suburbs because they think the city’s the only place that gets shafted on taxes, but the same principle works for the entire region.

Mind you, those sentiments are usually clothed in some nasty hatred for anyone who’s not from New York, complete with quasi-racist stereotypes.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:22:01 +0000

The fact that the city grinds to a halt when the subway’s knocked out doesn’t mean much. Los Angeles grinds to a halt too when its Metro Rail workers go on strike – not that many people take rail there, but they’re enough to clog the streets with their cars when transit’s unavailable.

By: SEAN

SEAN — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:06:46 +0000

Anything done at this point is better than nothing at all.

I wonder if Albany’s goal is to suck the MTA dry since most of the state doesn’t utilize the services but those state reps outside the metro area can dictate if the MTA gets money at all.

Better yet the city, Westchester & Long Island should be there own state. That way control of the MTA remains local & not subject to the wims of a politico from Rochester.

By: Working Class

Working Class — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:45:57 +0000

The current administration that you speak of has done nothing in the last 8 years to up the city’s pathetic contribution amount towards the MTA. This is the real issue that is never addressed. The city benefits most from transit but doesn’t pay nearly enough of there share!

By: Kai

Kai — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:18:15 +0000

I wasn’t suggesting financial structural changes, just that the city has more control over what is done with the piece of the pie that goes to NYCT.

By: Veritas

Veritas — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:38:17 +0000

Placing the TBTA and NYCT under mayoral control would be a monumental change for transit in NYC, on par with the creation of Transport for London. I think it would be a definite improvement, especially under the current administration.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:07:12 +0000

But the tolled bridges and tunnels are all entirely within City limits. Couldn’t they also go to the city (as part of NYCDOT), and continue to fund the subways? It’s kind of the opposite of the earlier plan to transfer the free bridges to the MTA.

I don’t know what that would mean, if anything, for LIRR/MNR though.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:04:31 +0000

Well, I take that back. I realized that the Tappan Zee is NOT an MTA bridge – I guess the MTA’s only involvement is the possible mass transit that will run across the new facility. Still, I’d hate to delay the bridge for such a study.

By: Stephen Lee Davis

Stephen Lee Davis — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:13:21 +0000

Oh to be clear, the benefits are clearly visible every day in any city where transit takes up such a huge share of travel. I wasn’t saying that we don’t see the benefits. I think I was trying to say that we don’t see what the city might look like without it. And if they truly did, congestion pricing, MTA funding, transit expansion — all these things would be no-brainers. Either way, we’re on the same page about primacy of transit in NYC.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:09:09 +0000

The problem with separating NYC Transit from the rest of the MTA is that you lose out on a significant portion of Transit’s revenue stream. The MTA was formed because the subways needed the money from the tolled bridges and tunnels to operate. Without significantly raising the fares, you can’t divorce Transit from the MTA.