Second Ave. Sagas

Report: Ravitch to suggest East River tolls

Written by

Benjamin Kabak

in

This morning, at 9:30 a.m., the MTA’s Finance Committee will meet in a special session to update the MTA Board on revenue and expense projections for the agency’s operating budget. While the news out of this meeting will not be good for the MTA’s bottom line, help, in the form of the Ravitch Commission is less than a month away.

In a few short weeks, Richard Ravitch will unveil his recommendations the city and state could adopt to save the MTA. Yesterday, the Post broke the unsurprising story that Ravitch is going to strongly urge the city to toll the East River bridges with the proceeds heading into the MTA’s depleted coffers. David Seifman and Bill Sanderson broke the story:

A state commission is proposing slapping tolls on the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and 59th Street bridges to plug a gigantic, $1.5 billion hole in the MTA’s budget, sources told The Post. In a report expected on Gov. Paterson’s desk next month, members of the Ravitch Commission – a 13-member panel appointed in June to identify solutions to the agency’s financial crisis – will recommend collecting tolls at all or some of the city’s East River bridges.

All of those bridges are owned by the city and currently have no tolls. But motorists now pay $5 each way on the MTA-owned East River crossings, which include the Triborough Bridge and the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown tunnels.

Higher subway, bus and train fares and a new payroll tax – to be imposed on employers – will also be suggested by the commission, which is led by former MTA chief Richard Ravitch, the sources said. Because the non-toll spans are owned by the city, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a state agency, both City Hall and Albany would have to OK the controversial idea.

The Daily News reported that congestion pricing would also be included in the Ravitch report.

On the surface, supporters of mass transit are going to find it tough to object to this idea. The City has often floated the idea of tolling the East River crossings as a way to generate more revenue for the MTA, and if indeed this suggestion appears in the Ravitch report, it will be hard for Albany and City Hall to ignore it. As with congestion pricing, it would serve two needs: The plan would both generate more revenue for the MTA and encourage commuters to seek out more environmentally friendly means of travel within New York City.

Of course, the Post went straight to New Yorkers who could find some way to complain about this plan. Business owners who rely on inter-borough travel decry it as another form of taxation with some even claiming that they won’t be able to stay in business if they’re charged $400 more a month in tolls. These drivers should be able to pass off the costs to their customers in the form of higher delivery fees. That’s not the issue.

The real issue I have is with people such as Walter Winds, mentioned in this graphic, who drives his wife to work over the Williamsburg Bridge. I can’t side with him in this great debate because subway trains already cross the Williamsburg Bridge. If Winds and fellow commuters who view cars as a luxury don’t want to pay, then they can take the train.

Meanwhile, John Liu, the chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee and the man supposedly in charge of advocating for mass transit, is already campaigning against the tolls. “The mayor tried to impose them during the dire fiscal straits in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and even then it went over like a lead balloon,” Liu said to The Post This plan, he said, will wind up on “the bottom of the East River.”

Thanks, John. Way to take a good idea and toss it under the bus for a change. One day, the head of the Transportation Committee won’t hate the idea of funding transportation in the city. For now, we’ll just have to hope that something Ravitch suggests — tolls, congestion pricing, money laundering — provides the MTA with the relief it needs.

Comments

39 responses to “Report: Ravitch to suggest East River tolls”

  1. rhywun

    Liu is just telling the truth–there’s no way this will go anywhere. Free travel on the East River bridges is sacrosanct, even without the Post’s sob-stories of some poor guy who has to “go back to a life of crime”.

    Reply
    1. Benjamin Kabak

      So here’s my question for Liu or anyone supporting him: Why not wait until after the Commission’s report comes out to start slamming it? Liu is supposed to be the advocate for public transit in the city council. His record shows that, time after time, he is definitely not.

      Meanwhile, we can’t expect some Fairy Godmother to come down and find a magically solution to a billion-dollar budget gap without the rest of us having to sacrifice something else. That may mean higher fares; that may mean East River tolls; that may mean higher payroll taxes; it may mean all of them. The MTA needs money, and someone has to pay for it. Would you rather tax people driving as a luxury or those of us commuting every day in the form of another fare hike?

      Reply
  2. JoshP

    Ben,

    Sorry, I think you’re wrong. There are a lot of people who depend on cars to travel- they don’t live near convenient public transportation and can’t afford to take taxis.

    As to businesses passing off costs to their customers? Every time the cost of living goes up a little more, someone is edged out living or working here. The more that happens, it works to relieve congestion but at what price?

    This proposal’s is a red herring. I remember press announcements every other week, the last time this was proposed: $750 million in debt, $45 million surplus in budget, they’re broke, they’re rich, they’re corrupt, etc. If the MTA’s response to being too slow getting the Hudson Yards paperwork together is revisiting an idea that bombed less than ten years ago, then maybe the problem is with the MTA?

    Reply
    1. Benjamin Kabak

      I think, Josh, that you have some valid points. There are some problems with the MTA, and their books have never been the most transparent semi-public documents in the city.

      But at the same time, we can’t deny that they’re in debt and need some form of guaranteed funding. They had a surplus that vanished because their real estate tax revenues dried up. That’s just not a reliable source of income for an agency as important to the city as the MTA.

      As for the congestion/cost-of-living argument, the vast majority of drivers can afford it. That’s what study after study showed during the congestion pricing debate. The vast majority of drivers do so because they prefer it to riding the subway. If the guy driving his wife to work over a bridge serviced by the subway can’t afford it any more, than she can take the J or Z to work.

      A small percentage of drivers will be screwed, but the rest of us will be saved both the environmental costs of excess driving and the economic costs of a troubled MTA.

      Reply
  3. Joby

    Why can’t the mayor just sell the East River Bridges to the MTA for 1$.
    Wouldn’t this fall under his authority as the executive – he has the right to dispose of city assets right?

    Reply
  4. Kid Twist

    May I suggestion something? You should fix the headline 😉

    Reply
    1. Benjamin Kabak

      Hah. Thanks.

      Reply
  5. Marc Shepherd

    The MTA is in the worst financial shape since at least the early 1970s. I suspect most legislators, though perhaps not a nitwit like Liu, will realize that something needs to be done, and there aren’t many options. The MTA can no longer borrow its way out of trouble; it has borrowed too much already. The only remaining levers are tax increases, fare increases, congestion pricing, and tolling the city-owned bridges.

    Oh, there’s one more lever: letting the system deteriorate.

    Reply
  6. David

    Here we go again with the b.s. congestion pricing plan which is nothing more but the execution of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. The real focus should be getting more funding from our government come hell or high water instead of once again forcing the public to shoulder the burden.

    The idea of passing costs off to the public is nothing more than an insult to the people who already have many burdens on their shoulders. As far as basing the idea that drivers can afford even more costs based on studies is questionable at best. Most studies regardless of the subject can be made to showcase results that benefit the proposed agenda. I would love to hear from these so called drivers that can “afford” more costs.

    I know you are not a fan of John Liu but he has a good reason to not support adding tolls. It seems most will take sides as the war has always been there between drivers & mass transit users. As much as I support mass transit, I feel it is better to be fair to all forms of the public instead of just being interested in our own needs. The real agenda should be focused on getting money from sources besides our pockets.

    Reply
    1. Marc Shepherd

      Here we go again with the b.s. congestion pricing plan which is nothing more but the execution of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. The real focus should be getting more funding from our government…

      Where do you think government gets its money from? That’s right: the public. Any source of funding for the MTA entails taking money from one group of people, and giving it to another.

      Reply
      1. Julia

        Yes — who is the government and who is the public in this statement?

        The real focus should be getting more funding from our government come hell or high water instead of once again forcing the public to shoulder the burden.

        The public includes more than just drivers — it also includes transit users, as well as the residents and taxpayers who don’t drive or use transit. We are all paying for your “free” trips across the East River bridges already. That’s the nature of public infrastructure.

        Reply
      2. David

        Yes, the government gets money from the public in the forms of taxes & such which come with being in this country. However it is something completely different to expect the public to have to burden more costs unnecessarily due to the government shortchanging the MTA in terms of adequate funding. We should not have to pay for their lack of action & plans like these do nothing but pass the buck back to us.

        Reply
        1. Julia

          I don’t think anyone here would disagree that the MTA should have managed its money and organization a LOT better than it did. Unfortunately, “go back in time and prevent the deficit from occurring in the first place” isn’t one of the options. If we shouldn’t have to pay to close the budget gap, what do you see as a viable alternative?

          Reply
        2. Benjamin Kabak

          So here’s my question, Dave, and you do allow for the answer up there: Who do you think pays when the government just hands over money to the MTA? The answer is, of course, the taxpayers. The government can’t just dole out money without taking in tax revenue. Otherwise, you end up in the untenable situation the US finds itself in now, and debt cripples the government.

          So here are your choices: Either everyone pays in the form of higher fares, higher payroll taxes, higher property and sales taxes or the people who pay are the ones choosing to engage in the luxury of driving. Yes, a lot of people drive out of necessity, but a lot more don’t. Those who drive out of necessity are in a better position to pass on those costs while those who drive because they like to should be discouraged, in New York City, from doing so.

          Those trips, as Julia said, across the East River are free only in the sense that no money is explicitly changing hands. They aren’t free in the sense that roads and infrastructure maintenance costs something as does the environmental and social damage from congestion and overbearing traffic. It just to me makes more sense to tax cars than it does to tax everyone through constant fare hikes and higher taxes across the board.

          Reply
        3. David

          Julia: I understand that we can’t go back in time. If we could, the first thing I would do is make sure Pataki never got elected which would have lead to Kalikow never being around. Enough of that though…

          Before passing the buck back to us, I think they really need to seriously trim the tons of unnecessary waste that goes on across all divisions of the agency. There is definitely a ton of money to be saved from that alone. They also should look into as much consolidation as possible.

          I would also like to finally see the Hudson Rail Yards deal closed. They are wasting time in not getting that done. Speaking of property, they need to maximize the potential in 370 Jay. They have a property in a prime location which could make them money in many ways whether it be in renting, leasing, or selling. Yet it continues to sit there & not live up to its potential for them.

          I know that all of these measures can’t close the entire deficit but it could cut a decent chunk of it down.

          The absolute last resort should be to ask us to shoulder more of the burden. Costs keep going up across the board but salaries don’t. You can only make it so far…

          Benjamin:

          This is where I have to disagree. I am not a believer of what I feel is the misconception that driving is a luxury for many. Our current infrastructure is not suited to handle a severe cutback in drivers who then flock to mass transit. I don’t see how making commutes even worse helps.

          What really needs to be done is for the MTA, & all forms of government to seriously go into their books & get rid of the unnecessary money being wasted whether it is in the form of paybacks or programs that just don’t work. After this, they should all find a way to agree to an adequate flow of steady funding.

          I just feel that before they go to the typical method of passing the costs on to drivers, riders, or in this case both, they seriously look into doing everything they can do even if it doesn’t thrill the many crooked hands involved on all levels.

          Unfortunately this will probably never happen as I’m sure we can all agree on this point. There are way too many hands in the cookie jar looking to make sure their needs are met regardless of the consequences to others.

          Reply
        4. Marc Shepherd

          That “adequate flow of steady funding” inevitably requires taking money from one group of people, and giving it to another. There simply is no other way.

          For instance, if the money comes from New York State general tax revenues, then you’re taking money from upstaters who never set foot in New York City. That’s one reason why tax increases to fund mass transit have always had trouble passing the legislature.

          Since you concede that the entire deficit cannot be made up simply by eliminating waste, you now need to face the question of who will pay to keep the system running, and better yet, expanding. You haven’t yet said who that should be. It seems your only answer is “somebody else.”

          You probably over-estimate the amount that could be saved by eliminating “unnecessary waste,” especially as the MTA budget already assumes substantial administrative savings. It’s a bit like John McCain claiming he could balance the Federal budget with earmark reform, when earmarks (even if he could somehow eliminate them) are only 1% of federal spending. It’s a feel-good answer that ignores the facts on the ground.

          Reply
        5. David

          I highly doubt the MTA has really done everything it can to look into eliminating waste.

          As far as upstate New York goes, those are individuals who I have a hard time feeling sorry for. For years upstate New York (talking outside the tri-state region) have benefited from funds that rightfully should have gone to us. They should have to shoulder costs way before we do considering that without the city, they are pretty worthless.

          Reply
        6. Benjamin Kabak

          But this isn’t true. Agriculture is the second largest slice of the New York State economy. Upstate could probably get along just fine without us.

          Reply
        7. David

          I don’t think in the long haul they could survive without our contributions. In the past they might have but not now.

          I believe I set a new record in commenting on a blog in one day!

          Reply
        8. Mr. Eric

          The MTA has NOT done everything it could to save money. Once again they can consolidate duplicate departments like accounts payable, accounts receivable, human resources, between all of there agencies.

          By combining the ordering of uniforms and office supplies between all of the agencies they can save alot of money with the huge bulk orders. One reason they don’t already do this is because the TA gets inferior uniforms and products that would not be accepted by LIRR, Metronorth, or Birdges & Tunnels.

          Reply
        9. Mr. Eric

          The MTA can also shed some of it’s upper management. This would save millions over a few years and not affect service at all.

          Reply
        10. Alon Levy

          Agriculture doesn’t sustain an economy. California’s breadbasket, the Central Valley, is as poor as Appalachia. And that’s despite having more fertile land and no legacy of deindustrialization.

          Reply
        11. Scott E

          Mr. Eric,
          On one hand, the MTA could save money by combining like-departments in different divisions. On the other, they could be split up entirely so each division is accountable to the community it serves.

          But back to your earlier point, I think more money stands to be made from the PROCESS by which the MTA buys supplies, than by the VOLUME in which it buys them. I keep citing an example from some time back, and I wish I’d saved the copy of the paper. In the “Public Notices” section of the New York Post, the MTA posted an advertisement seeking a contractor to submit a bid to “supply ten pairs of work boots”. After placing the ad (which likely costs more than 10 pairs of shoes), they would receive and review proposals, then award the contract to the low bidder. FOR SHOES! Just like the guy who got rich selling a $900 hammer to former President Reagan, people are getting rich selling everyday items to the Transportation Authority.

          In all honesty, it’s getting better though. At least the Line Manager on the L line knows he can just buy video screens at Circuit City without dealing with the whole time- and labor-consuming bid process.

          Reply
  7. Scott E

    I think it’s time to carve up the MTA into its individual components. The city recognizes how transit can spur growth, create a safe environment, and revitalize neighborhoods, which is all part of the mission of the city (this is the impetus behind a 7-line extension). Meanwhile, the MTA, and specifically NYC Transit’s responsibility begins and ends with moving people. They don’t benefit when ridership increases (as they can’t support it), they don’t benefit from decreased street traffic (except in the case of buses), students are an “unnecessary burden” who will not grow to make the subways a better place, and any investment in the subway will benefit the city, not themselves.

    Give control of the subways back to its biggest stakeholder: the city. Fold the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority (er, RFK Bridge & Tunnel Authority) into an NYCDOT division – who can fairly set tolls across the board. Give Long Island Bus to its biggest stakeholder: Nassau County, and leave the state with only LIRR and Metro-North. Privatize the express buses in the model of Academy, DeCamp, and Coach USA in New Jersey. Make accommodations for cross-honoring in the event of service disruptions.

    The competition that exist between MTA bridges and DOT bridges is ludicrous, and the lack of interest of subways in the neighborhoods they serve is counterproductive. Yes, it’s convenient to have a one-stop-shop web site, but the agency overall has so many diverging interests that a common umbrella just leads to bureaucracy and hidden agendas. There’s a better way.

    OK, time to get off my soap-box. This wasn’t the real point of this original article, was it?

    Reply
    1. Marc Shepherd

      I think it’s time to carve up the MTA into its individual components.

      Don’t forget the reason why the MTA was created in the first place: so that toll surpluses from bridges & tunnels could be used to subsidize mass transit. Without those surpluses, subways and commuter railways would be in even worse shape.

      Reply
  8. Mr. Eric

    I agree with separating the MTA. Time for this rogue agency of thieves to be disbanded and each group function on it’s own.

    Reply
    1. Benjamin Kabak

      Separating the MTA would deprive the subways and buses of its primary source of income. MTA Bridge and Tunnel has to stick around to provide funds for mass transit.

      Reply
      1. Scott E

        I was keeping NYCT and B&T both under NYCDOT, so the tolls could still fund subways and city buses. As far as express buses and commuter railroads, I’m not quite sure…

        Reply
      2. Mr. Eric

        I was thinking it will help if the TA wouldn’t have to give money to LIRR and Metronorth every year like they have been for many years. Plus if they were seperate the TA would become a city agency and get respect of the other city agency’s rather than NO respect as a gray area agency.

        Reply
        1. Alon Levy

          Except that most of the money flow within the system comes from the subway to the buses and from the IRT to the IND/BMT. The commuter rail systems are small potatoes compared to the NYCT bus system.

          Reply
  9. Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » » The sheer cliff of a $1.2 billion deficit

    […] 2nd Ave. Subway History « Report: Ravitch to suggest East River tolls […]

    Reply
  10. Gary

    The bridge tolling plan was always superior to the other congestion pricing schemes. I hope they can pull this off.

    It should also be paired with a more progressive income tax structure. However, the catch is we need DEDICATED sources of revenue as Ben notes. That is the greatest virtue of tolling, on par with reducing congestion and encouraging transit use.

    I am hopeful that we’re going to see serious funding from the Feds going forward for capital improvements, but we need to step up and fund this system locally as well.

    Toll the bridges, and let’s start paying down some of the crushing debt that Pataki and Kalikow (GOP hacks) buried the MTA under.

    Reply
  11. herenthere

    Anyone know if Sheldon Silver and John Liu were re-elected? Hope not.

    Reply
    1. Gary

      Yes and N/A . . . Liu is on council and that election is next year, but I understand he is gunning for Public Advocate (election also next year) along with deBlasio and Siegel.

      Reply
      1. herenthere

        Better start something like the poster eastvillageidiot made:
        http://eastvillageidiot.com/20…..w-yorkers/

        Reply
        1. Alon Levy

          Except that Silver supported congestion pricing.

          Reply
  12. Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » » The MTA Deficit: Who gets it, and who doesn’t

    […] already seen that John Liu, the chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committe, doesn’t get it, but what about a few other big […]

    Reply
  13. Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » » A history of the East River tolling efforts

    […] the city gears up for another debate about tolling the East River bridges, Sewell Chan at City Room offers up a 125-year history of the efforts to charge for these river […]

    Reply
  14. Steve

    All these advocates for this toll marvel me. Its so easy for you to say sure add another tax to the driver… Never mind that we pay the highest insurance, and that we have huge gas prices, and that our pot holes are craters, that we cant find a decent parking spot without paying 150 a month, that cleaning regulations make us move our cars all day, we get extremely pricey tickets, that our inspections and registration fees are huge, that I DONT WANT TO ride a train, that I cant ride a train, that i have kids and family to take places, and still have to make it to work, that i have an pet, an injured or invalid loved one, or that i JUST WANT MY DAYUM PEACE AND QUIET ON THE CAR I PAY 500 A MONTH FOR TO ESCAPE THE BS THIS GOVERNMENT continues to to tyrannize us with…factor that in…this run on sentence doesnt even include the lunacy and criminal dealings of the MTA,, At this point force will be deemed needed to push back this economic oppression and enslavement of the work man and women…its a disgrace to be a ny citizen….and as such i am appalled…add that to the list of why people hate us and this city.,

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts