So do tranist users! I haven’t gotten a seat on the 4 train since 1977. Fewer transit riders would lead to a nicer riding experience.

A nicer experience isn’t a social good. The reason for congestion pricing isn’t that fewer drivers doesn’t lead to a nicer driving experience; it’s that it leads to much higher driving speeds.

But sure, the luxury bus is profitable.

Breaking up the MTA into IRT, IND, and BMT is a nostalgic solution looking for a problem. It’s not going to solve the actual problems facing the MTA; if it did, you’d expect the fractionalized Bay Area transit systems to be huge money makers and the single-agency Hong Kong MTR to be a subsidy hog.

Let’s say for argument’s sake the cost of countdown clocks is 1 Billion Dollars. But 900 Million of that funding is from the Feds and 100 Million is from MTA.
The MTA could forfeit the FTA Commitment and return the unused portion of the funds. They would also probably have some sort of lawsuit on their hands from the contractor for abandoning the contract. So the MTA Would have to forfeit 900 Million Dollars to save (for the lack of a better word— maybe I should say reallocate) 100 Million.
Yes it is absurd. But everyone says this is doomsday is it not?

How about 2nd Avenue Subway. Let us again use an arbitrary # for argument’s sake (Doomsday’s sake?). Let’s say Second Avenue Subway Costs 10 Billion Dollars. If MTA abandons 2nd avenue they would probably save about 1 Billion Dollars… but they would have to forfeit 9 Billion back to the Feds. But they would be able to reallocate (yeah I like this word better) another 1 Billion dollars (granted that 1 Billion Dollars is over time).

Yes I realize most folks don’t realize that the MTA can’t simply reallocate capital funds because they are grants from the feds earmarked for specific purposes.

But is this doomsday or isn’t it? Or is this just a catchphrase the media likes to use?

Anyway, my family does own a car, but we rarely use it in the city. I’ve written at length about unnecessary car trips in response to your comments before. Basically, those are trips taken by people who have other options. Someone driving in from Brooklyn to Manhattan because he or she doesn’t like to take the subway is taking an unnecessary car trip. These happen all the time. Unnecessary car trips aren’t just those taken by someone else.

Furthermore, your discussion on externalities understates the impact of driving. Do you really think the costs someone driving exerts on the city is even comparable to the fact that you haven’t had a seat on the 4 train at rush hour in a while? It’s not even close. The simple truth is that driving exerts far more of a cost on the city and its residents than transit and that the money drivers pay don’t come close to covering those true costs. Cars have a purpose in urban life, but that shouldn’t be a purpose that comes at the expense of the rest of us.

“Right now, cars exact a cost on the city.”

So do tranist users! I haven’t gotten a seat on the 4 train since 1977. Fewer transit riders would lead to a nicer riding experience.

What is”unnecessary auto use”? You have a car, right? So, I guess you’d define necessary as any trip you take, and unneccesary as any trip taken by someone else?

Of course that would be political suicide. The only sensible alternative is a big fare hike. Especially one that was big enough to save people from some of the worse service cuts (e.g. the eastern half of the B4), although some of the service cuts (e.g. the restructuring of the X1-X9) should be done anyway in the name of efficiency.

The sanest thing to do to cut costs would be to cut wages. But the workers are unionized, so the MTA can’t do that.
And breaking the union is about as politically feasible as bridge tolls and congestion pricing, unfortunately. :\

I’m not saying that the MTA is without fault, just that the blame should be shared. They are in a symbiotic, not adversarial, relationship, with elected officials. The public perception, of course, is different. In modern times, elected officials have mastered the art of running against their institutions. This is why, for example, legislative bodies are almost always unpopular, but everyone loves their legislators. So they keep getting reelected. Our elected officials are doing the same thing with the MTA. They need the MTA as a scapegoat so that they can express populist outrage and appear to represent their constituents. Otherwise, our populist elected officials would actually have to do their jobs.