While the Bush Administration doesn’t have many fans in the New York area, without the Federal Transit Administration, an arm of the federal Department of Transportation, the current MTA capital plan would be flailing for funding. The FTA is footing the bill for a significant portion of the Second Ave. Subway and the LIRR East Side Access plan, among other non-MTA projects in the area.

But the FTA chief had a warning for New York City yesterday: Don’t count on that funding to continue forever. Speaking in the City for the first time since the congestion pricing defeat earlier this week, James S. Simpson, the FTA chief, criticized Assembly Democrats for what he called the “disappointing” and “short-sighted” decision to kill congestion pricing. At the same time, he warned city leaders that the FTA’s money source — the Highway Trust Fund — is running low.

“It’s hard to imagine we’re going to be able to make any real progress without trying new things, like congestion pricing, high-speed electronic tolling and public-private partnerships that shift some of the costs and risks involved in designing, building and operating transit systems to the private sector,” he said, according to Patrick Arden’s story in Metro.

But while that sounds like something of a vague threat, City Room had more detailed comments from Simpson:

“All of these projects are tremendously important, but they pose significant challenges going forward. First, only a limited number of firms have the capacity required to bid and construct these projects. That raises concerns for us about limited competition, which has implications for how jobs are priced. Second, we’re concerned about how difficult it is to create accurate cost and performance estimates for these complicated, multiyear transit projects, given the continued escalation of commodity prices. The risk of underestimating costs — and incurring additional debt obligations — is very real. And third, we’re concerned — and the region’s business and political leadership should also be concerned — about the massive new transportation projects on the horizon — including the Tappan Zee bridge, a new Lower Manhattan rail link and the second phase of the Second Avenue subway. Are there sufficient resources and capacity available to see these projects through?”

New York, it seems, can no longer expect the Feds to help out the budget deficit.

Now, on the one hand, this is very much a matter of partisan politics, something I’ve tried to overtly avoid on this site. The Bush Administration has been rather hostile toward public transportation and would rather not see cities relying on the federal government to fund their projects.

On the other hand, a healthy urban transportation system in the New York City area is vital to our nation’s economy. As New York-centric as that sounds, it’s the truth. With a change in the White House coming in November, it’s possible that New York could find itself with a more urban-friendly and transit-friendly administration in place come 2009. At that point, the FTA may just have some more funds for us.

For now, the MTA must move forward without that safety net from the FTA. But who knows? Ten months down the road, the Feds and the City could be singing a different tune. Can we afford to wait that long?

Residential parking permits are but one way to curtail traffic and fund the MTA. (Photo courtesy of Streetsblog)

As the congestion pricing blame game swirls around New York State politics, the MTA is picking itself up, dusting itself off and starting all over again. With a while to go before 2009, the agency is looking, with the help of the state, at ways to fund its next five-year capital campaign, and I have a few not-very-groundbreaking suggestions that could bring in more money and curtail traffic in the city too.

But first, the news: Gov. David Paterson announced on Tuesday the creation of a panel to study alternate means of funding the MTA’s capital campaign. Richard Ravitch, the one-time head of the MTA who brought the agency out of the disastrous 1970s, will head the panel. The New York Times offers up a bit more information:

In a speech in Manhattan at a breakfast of the Association for a Better New York, the governor said the commission would examine ways to finance capital spending for transit that included “a broad balance of taxes for businesses and the rest of the public.”

He also said the commission would take another look at “the elements of Mayor Bloomberg’s plan that all of us like, and that perhaps we can still weave them into the process,” according to a text of the speech.

In another piece in The Times, Straphangers Campaign chief Gene Russianoff writes about alternate ways to fund the MTA. Well, gosh, that sounds familiar. I hope Mr. Ravitch invites Mr. Russianoff to his panel.

Meanwhile, I’m going to offer up my two suggestions for revenue streams, and both of them involve charging drivers. The drivers who find this site won’t like that, and they’re a feisty bunch. But in my opinion, the free parking literally has to stop.

First up are residential parking permits. Originally pushed as part of the congestion pricing package, residential parking permits are as they sound. The city marks off residential neighborhoods into zones, and the only way to park in a zone is to pony up cash and prove that you live there.

While the original plan called for a minimal outlay of $10, why not push a plan based on economics? The higher-demand zones — those closer to the Central Business Districts in each borough — and the higher-rent areas will cost more. Like tax breaks, permit fee relief is available for those who qualify, but the city should start capitalizing on its street revenue. Charge a few hundred bucks for the year and kick this money back into the MTA’s coffers. For those people who move to New York and don’t switch their registration, charge more.

A similar program has worked in DC, and the Nation’s Capital now plans to spend the permit revenue on livable-streets programs. New York could institute a similar plan throughout the five boroughs and spend the money on subways.

At the same time, the city should up the prices on the parking meters. Charging $1.50 to park for an hour is well below market rate. Garages charge up to $21 an hour depending on their location, and the city could easily charge $4 an hour or more to park at meters. This move would serve to decrease traffic while funding whatever the city wants to fund with more parking revenues.

Right now, these two moves make a lot of sense for a city leadership reeling from a congestion pricing setback. Beneficially, the city can institute these programs without approval from Albany. Of course, most politicians are unlikely to support a parking permit program that would charge all car-owning New Yorkers a fee to park, but as the city’s options were narrowed for them this week, the least desirable courses of action politically may be the way to go.