Everybody wants to ride to the MTA’s rescue. Politicians from all walks of New York life are trying to propose ways through which the MTA could cover some — or all — of its $1.4 billion deficit without resorting to fare hikes and service cuts. Let’s take a look.
First up is the New York City comptroller. William Thompson just wants to add high fees to every car registration in the Big Apple and its surrounding counties to cover the deficit. He also wants to implement a commuter tax. Colin Moynhian had the story:
The New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., said on Sunday that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s gaping budget deficits could be diminished by increasing automobile registration fees in 12 counties served by the authority’s trains and buses.
At a press conference outside Grand Central Terminal, Mr. Thompson said that drivers now pay $30 every two years to register a vehicle in New York City, though they also pay additional state fees. He proposed adding an annual fee of $100 for drivers in the city and nearby counties who register vehicles weighing up to 2,300 pounds, with vehicles above that weight also being assessed an additional 9 cents per pound.
The fees, which Mr. Thompson said would go directly to the authority, could total about $1 billion per year, with some $350 million from New York City residents. The authority faces a $1.2 billion deficit next year, and it unveiled a budget on Thursday that called for a 23 percent increase in tolls and fares along with cutbacks in service and layoffs. Mr. Thompson, a Democratic candidate for mayor, said he feared that the proposed fare increases would make mass transit unaffordable for some riders.
Thompson also called for a revival of the commuter tax, last seen around these parts in 1999. He believes these combined fees could raise nearly $2 billion for mass transit while serving to cut down on traffic as well.
Of course, the problem is that this plan, proposed by a potential mayoral candidate, is completely politically infeasible. If congestion pricing — a fee targeted at those that actively enter and exit the Manhattan Central Business District — couldn’t pass, a passive fee levied on everyone probably wouldn’t stand much of a chance.
This is a sad reality really because this would be a great plan. Owners of cars would reconsider their lavish purchases while businesses wouldn’t be taxed nearly as heavily as they would have been under the congestion pricing plan. Meanwhile, those businesses would easily be able to pass on the costs to their consumers.
I’m sure Richard Ravitch will include this idea in his proposal. After all, Thompson brought it up in his testimony to the commission, but whether it could become a reality is another question entirely.
* * *
In other news, Council members Eric Gioia and David Yassky have again urged the MTA to better manage its real estate holdings. The problem here is that this is a one-time solution. If the MTA sells their buildings or stops leasing what is now mostly vacant space in Brooklyn, they get an infusion of cash for now but not a steady income stream going forward. We need real long-term solutions and not a short-term fix.
* * *
Update 4:23 p.m.: The Comptroller has released the details of his plan. You can read the whole thing right here as a PDF.
11 comments
Bake sale.
That would be the equivalent of the February 2007 Greenwich-Village-Taco-Bell-Incident all over again, times 468.
I’d rather they just hiked the fares without cutting service, which would make it easy to present various alternatives on a continuous numerical scale: ordinarily the base fare would need to be hiked to $3.00, but with bridge tolls it could go down to $2.75, with various service reductions it could go down to $2.50, with a commuter tax it could go to $2.25, etc.
I supported congestion pricing, but this sounds like a much better idea. Congestion pricing does put an unfair burden on outerborough residents, which is the only setback it had, but this idea distributes the burden evenly throughout the entire New York Metropolitan area.
Not mentioned above is that cars registered in New York can park in residential areas. Cars registered out of state can only park on commercial streets, or else risk a fine. This will prevent people from registering out of state in order to avoid the higher registration fee, and will make it easier for the actual residents of this state to find parking in their own area.
If the Richard Ravitch really emphasizes this idea when he releases his report, it can get passed. He can use the fare hike and service cut threats like a gun to our elected officials heads and force them approve this idea.
I disagree completely. This is a far worse idea than congestion pricing. It penalizes the middle class far more than anyone thought congestion pricing would, and it’s quite simply a regressive tax that places an unfair burden on lower-income individuals.
It’s very simple: this increase in fees would penalize people who have no access to public transportation and no use for it. The purpose for charging a fee to enter Manhattan is that it is rife with transit options, and the funds would go to improve those options. Charging Joe Schmo for his pickup that he uses for work up in Orange County is completely unfair. He never goes to Manhattan and is miles away from public transit. It’s just simply not an option for him.
The purpose of congestion pricing was to get people out of their cars and onto public transit. Why would it be fair to charge this fee to people who are miles away from even a bus stop?
Completely agree. This is Econ 101 stuff; it’s just nonsensical pandering for Thompson to seriously propose this.
Because it’ll depress property values away from transit and stop growth there. Right now Orange County is among the fastest growing parts of the region; give it a few more years and the sprawl will start encroaching on our water supply in the Catskills.
Every polluter has a reason to pollute. Truck drivers think that they need free access to publicly funded roads. Big business thinks that it needs to dump toxic waste in low-income communities in order to make a profit. Automakers think that they can’t profitably make 50 mpg cars. In every instance where a country or state regulated away this right to pollute, the polluters survived, and stayed in business.
Joe Schmo from Orange County is in the same category. His large-tract prefab single-story is an energy guzzler; it takes far more energy to heat or cool than a Manhattan condo with the same area. He drives long distances to work, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And his income depends on local commuters who drive to Manhattan and create asthma problems in Harlem that they never have to pay for.
Sorry, Thompson lost me when he said hiking registration fees would cut down on traffic.
Charging more for registration might cut the rate of car ownership somewhat, for people who own a car or are thinking about buying one but could get by without one. But once you’ve paid the fee, there’s no incentive to drive less, much less an incentive to drive less in higher-traffic areas.
The way to cut down on driving is to charge people for driving.
No, this still works. Singapore keeps car ownership low using a three-pronged strategy: unaffordable car taxes, European-style gas taxes, and some congestion pricing.
New York can actually outdo Singapore here, by having rail transit and walkable streets as two additional prongs. It unfortunately is not in the position to imitate Hong Kong (or Portland) and have a strong urban growth boundary.
Any possibility that all the green-tech, public works, Keynsian spending that Pres.-elect Obama put forward yesterday will find it’s way to the MTA?
I hope so.
[…] as frequent commenter Julia pointed out last week, raising fees wouldn’t serve the environmental goal of reducing traffic and raising reliance […]