Comments on: Bloomberg, others blast Paterson’s payroll tax plan

By: Joby

Joby — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:28:50 +0000

I agree with what Alon said. If there were an RTA which consisted of the LIRR & MNRR, then i suspect there would be greater emphasis on integration of the maintenance, equipment and management of the two commuter railroads. The way it is configured right now, it allows the MTA to delude itself that it can maintain these as disparate entities, not parts of a system.
As far as the NYC-TA, the City agencies would have their own source of revenue – the Bridges and Tunnels, if the State didn’t fund the NYC-TA thoroughly enough, presumably tolls would go up, as well as fares. This would guarantee adequate funding because pressure to fund the MTA would come from both transit users and people who use the Bridges and Tunnels.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:37:29 +0000

First, the current system isn’t really integrated. You don’t see attempts to make good subway/commuter rail connections, or integrate fares, or time transfers, or do any of the other hundred things that make commuter rail and rapid transit cohere in the rest of the world.

Second, the state funds city services all the time, for example CUNY. CUNY works just fine severed from SUNY.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:23:28 +0000

“…terrible economics, grossly unfair, and contrary to every principle of good regional development.”

- Kind of like the Mayor’s hand-picked MTA Board members agreeing to let Bruce Ratner walk away from his promised $100 Million payment for development of the LIRR Atlantic/Carlton Yards. Or to simply ignore the customary Payment In Lieu Of Taxes that would normally be required by Related, for development of the West Side Yards.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:50:23 +0000

The only way to find out would be to remove politics from the equation altogether, i.e. privatize all forms of movement, then wait and see where the prices settle. This will of course never happen, so calculating the ‘real’ cost of moving around will always remain nearly impossible.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:36:10 +0000

I do agree that congestion pricing and/or bridge tolls were the best solutions available. They failed because some folks thought those ideas were unfair, too.

They failed because a few state representatives don’t understand the breakdown between those who commute via car and those who rely on public transit. I’d be willing to say it’s as simple as that. Being inherently unfair as you say the taxation levels are and being willfully ignorant as I claim those representatives to be are two different things.

Anyway, I’ll try to find the tax breakdowns, but I think you’ll find that NYC residents, because of the myriad taxes and fees only we pay, heavily subsidize all of the transit options in the region.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:29:14 +0000

I am struggling with the premise that “New York City workers and residents who already pay more than their fair share to subsidize suburban commuter rails.” Yes, we do pay more...but is it unfair? If you can find the numbers showing that we city-dwellers are subsidizing suburban rails, I would like to see them. I suspect it is more likely that they are subsidizing us. Naturally, no one ever wants to pay a dime more than they pay today. The Straphangers, for instance, can be reliably counted upon to oppose every fare increase. Hardly anyone volunteers to pay higher taxes. But is it unfair? I am not so sure. I do agree that congestion pricing and/or bridge tolls were the best solutions available. They failed because some folks thought those ideas were unfair, too.

By: Russell Warshay

Russell Warshay — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:38:53 +0000

I see the attractiveness of this idea in that it offers the potential for more accountability. However, I believe that before such a move is made, which eventually may prove to be inevitable, steps need to be taken to increase accountability.

Here’s what I’d like to see happen:
1) It should be extremely difficult to remove MTA Board appointees.
2) The length of service on the Board should be very long, perhaps 14 years like the Federal Reserve. This way the board members have to live with their decisions, and they will serve through at least one full business cycle.

I believe that doing those two things will also give the MTA more leverage in negotiations with the City and State. They will be able to raise fares and tolls with relative impunity. If legislators don’t want fares and tolls to go up, they can always increase subsidies to the MTA.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:01:18 +0000

I thought we wanted more efficiencies, not more inefficiencies. Even as a single agency, the MTA still seems to sometimes have multiple departments doing the same task. That would only be legitimized by your proposal.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:49:59 +0000

Unless you have a more in-depth explanation to this proposal, I don’t really see how splitting an integrated regional transit network into its constituent parts really addresses the institutional political lack of funding. Strikes me as a way to sever the MTA from any sort of state responsibility at all. The city probably can’t afford and shouldn’t be expected to go at it alone.

By: Joby

Joby — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:47:09 +0000

It’s high time that the MTA died.
The solution to these problems is to split the MTA into a Regional Transportation Association, and a City Transit Authority.
The City transit authority should include all MTA assets in the 5 boroughs – Bridges & Tunnels, Subways, Buses, Staten Island Transit etc. The RTA should include LIRR & Metro North. Thus, money raised in the city would stay in the city for the maintenance of the city’s transit needs.
No other solution addresses the perennial raiding of the funds that should be earmarked to NYC transit (as per the 1968(?) agreement which established the MTA by swallowing up TBTA & NYCT) by the suburban commuters.