For all of its troubles, politically and economically, the MTA always has a trump card in its back pocket. If nothing happens with regards to the multi-billion-dollar hole in its capital plan, the agency can always look to fare revenue for a potential source of income. The agency’s leaders know they have a captive audience of New Yorkers who have to come to rely on the subway system now more than ever; they know they can jack up tolls; and they know it gets the attention of those in Albany when the dreaded phrase “fare hikes” comes up in the public discourse.
Earlier this week as yet more time passed with nothing happening with regards to the MTA’s 2015-2019 capital plan, agency officials started talking about fare hikes and boy did it start something in the halls of power. During committee meetings on Monday, MTA CEO Bob Foran confirmed what anyone in the know already knows: The MTA could close its capital funding gap by issuing more debt which would incur higher operating costs in the form of debt service which would be covered by … fare hikes.
“If we do not receive adequate funding to carry us through the next two years, we don’t have sufficient funds to keep the program going. At some point, the board may take action and the action that they really only can turn to would be one that addresses fares and tolls,” Foran said.
He explained that fare hikes to cover the gap could top 15% — a far cry from the current rate of around four percent every two years the MTA has implemented. Meanwhile, Foran wasn’t the only one crying foul. Jeffrey Kay noted similar concerns. “If they don’t do anything in the next two months, we have a freight train coming at us,” he said. “This is a real problem, and it’s not just going to impact the MTA. It’s going to impact the riders, it’s going to impact the workforce, it’s going to impact the construction unions, and it’s going to impact jobs…This is a real serious issue, and I don’t know what we can do in order to tell our partners that this is real.”
A day after the meetings — clearly on orders from Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office — MTA CEO and Chairman Tom Prendergast released a statement backtracking on his colleagues’ assertions. ““Yesterday’s mention of a potential 15 percent fare and toll increase,” Prendergast said on Tuesday, “was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. No one has proposed we pay for our capital needs on the backs of our riders, and no one is considering it.”
He reiterated those sentiments on Wednesday following the MTA’s full board meeting. “We have never, ever closed the capital program on the backs of the fare payers. That’s unconscionable. That’s not our desire. That’s not what we’re going to do,” he promised, again sounding as though the governor’s office had turned the screws on him.
Prendergast doth protest too much as the truth is that few options are even on the table. James Brennan’s proposal hasn’t moved much in the two weeks since it was introduced, and more troubling is recent borough-based opposition to the Move New York plan. A group of Queens Democrats, including the usually transit-friendly Assembly rep Phillip Goldfeder and Borough President Melinda Katz, issued a statement in opposition to Move New York because they claim it is “unfair” to Queens and “lacks any promise of returns.” How they drew this conclusion is beyond me, but their statement is far more damaging to transit in New York City than these politicians realize.
Goldfeder tried to defend his position to me on Twitter. He claims to be concerned that Move New York doesn’t “address transit starved communities,” but without the dedicated revenue, the MTA doesn’t have the money to begin to implement improvements. It’s not even a Catch-22; it’s just common sense — something I usually expect from transit allies such as Goldfeder and Katz.
Overall, without Queens’ Democrats, Cuomo isn’t likely to embrace Move New York, and without Cuomo, Move New York — along the $1 billion that come with it — is dead in the water. Thus, we circle back to the MTA’s fare hikes. They’re a threat and a political cudgel the MTA can use to get attention, but they also shouldn’t be dismissed. Fare hikes are, after all, the only way the MTA can guarantee revenue for itself, and if New Yorkers don’t like the idea of a 15 percent hike, I know a bunch of politicians in Queens who deserve to bear the brunt of any complaints.
58 comments
The Queens politicians have a reason to be skeptical of transit improvements. Haven’t all major capital projects been in Manhattan? Haven’t we been promised not once. not twice, but three times that we would have a Second Avebue Subway? We just had to approve a bond issue, and we did twice and guess what, 30 years later, no SAS. We were promised more money for education if we approve a lottery. What will we get? A LaGuardia extension that doesnt save anyone any time and dumb SBS routes that don’t work. We didn’t approve shifts in funding so more money does not go to education. Why should we again believe vague promises?
This is nothing but organized scare tactics to scare people to approve Move NY by hinting if they don’t, the fare will go up.
“The Queens politicians have a reason to be skeptical of transit improvements. Haven’t all major capital projects been in Manhattan?”
The only major improvements of the past 60 years have been the A train extension to the Rockaways, the J and E trains to Jamaica Center, the 63rd Street tunnel connection to the Queens Boulevard line. The LIRR connection to GCT will benefit eastern Queens.
Queens politicians successfully FOUGHT a number of other subway improvements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
And the horse they rode in on.
Perhaps you’re making Brooklyn Bus’ argument for him. The A to the Rockaways benefitted relatively few people, the J & E to Jamaica Center came not as a service addition, but a reroutimg of existing service (i.e. No E to 179 St and no J to 168 St). Lastly, sending the F via 63 St removed it from serving 2 key East Midtown stations, and replacing it at first with the lowly V.
While we’re at it, the G now permanently ends at Court Sq, an inconvenient transfer to the Queens Blvd line in both directions with no supplemental service to the R on weekends, and a greatly reduced 7 Express service.
All this transit $, and not much service improvement to show for it.
But isn’t a large chunk of the capital campaign going toward signal upgrades and modernization as well as B-Division countdown clocks? Those aren’t nearly as sexy as a new line, but they would both benefit Queens as well as everyone else. And if Queens politicians really want effective SBS (or better yet, real BRT) then they should fight for it rather than blockading any attempts at improvements without presenting alternatives.
I agree with Alex,
And there’s also the fact that LIC is overburdened with excess congestion (plus all externalities) on a regular basis due to the free Queensboro Bridge. The same LIC becoming much more dense, attracting educated/affluent millennials and becoming a major commercial district.
The Move NY plan is good for Queens. If the tolls do go up again, expect even more drivers opting for the bridge.
I’m not sure when this became an either/or proposition? “Move New York or else your fares are going up by 15%” is a false choice.
Other options are, in fact, on the table. Maybe they aren’t options that people normally like to discuss, but since we’re sitting here pretending that the only choices are 15% fare hikes or a plan that professes to be about “equity” even as it does nothing to dismantle the economic moat around Staten Island or correct the inequities of a bridge and two tunnels that cost $14 in one direction and are free in the other or address dreadfully under-priced parking in Manhattan (actually, street parking is dreadfully underpriced everywhere but there’s honestly no excuse for meters below 96 to be $3.50 an hour when they ought to be $16~$20 an hour).
Does anyone really believe that a dramatic property tax hike in Manhattan is going to discourage enough real estate demand for anyone to notice? For that matter, how attractive is telecommuting that an income tax hike on Wall Street is going to seriously discourage that industry from bringing its people downtown every day? (And, conversely, if an income tax hike does depopulate Wall Street’s offices enough for anyone to notice, is that not also helpful to the purposes of fixing our broken transit network – merely on the demand side instead of the supply side?)
Will we ever seriously threaten drivers with a gas “tax hike” that would actually merely restore the gas tax to where it ought to be had it not been effectively cut by inflation over the past two decades? In fact, will we ever rationalize gas tax collection to be based on a percentage of the cost of fuel instead of being based on the quantity of fuel purchased so that we can stop having this stupid fight about gas tax “increases”?
No. Of course not. We’re not going to do any of those things because nobody has any damn vision beyond “let’s put tolls on (some of) the free bridges and that will solve everything” or “well I guess we weren’t able to toll the free bridges, time to punish transit riders with a 15% fare hike!”
Neither option is good.
It’s odd to me that you agree that parking should be market rate but that the bridges should remain free. I’m honestly curious about how you see them differently.
I’m not necessarily opposed to tolling all bridge and tunnel travel, but all of it means all of it. Toll the GWB in both directions, toll the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in both directions. The Move NY plan revealed itself as not being about fairness at all when it didn’t even mention the elephant in the room of one-way tolling on the Hudson crossings; never mind addressing it. That isn’t toll rationalization.
I do believe that a significant number of drivers will avoid a toll if there’s a free option – but I’d be interested in using that mentality to encourage drivers to stay away from Manhattan by making the Verrazzano, Goethals, and RFK bridges free and doubling tolls (in the form of westbound tolling at the current eastbound rates) on the three Hudson crossings into Manhattan to make up for it.
The reason for one way tolling is historical. Paying cash to the agent in the old days resulted in long lines of traffic. Long lines of traffic were much worse for Manhattan than for the town on the other side, so they decided to toll one way and double the toll under the assumption that everyone drives back the same route. This system works as long as all bridges and tunnels are done in the same direction — out of Long Island and Manhattan. I believe the Staten Island bridges screw the system up though.
Also with the new tolling technology the historical reason for one way tolling is gone, but unless you cut the toll in half, it is a toll hike (I am not opposed to toll hikes — I support them, but let’s call them what they are, not make up a hidden hike by tolling both ways while leaving the toll unchanged).
Right, that’s what I’m saying.
Drop the tolls on the two freeway bridges on Staten Island (Verrazzano and Goethals), and on the RFK bridge. In exchange, hike the tolls from $14 one way to $14 both ways on the two Hudson freeway tunnels and the GWB. (Alternatively, propose $14 each way and “concede” down to $10~$12.) That’s more equitable than tolling the free bridge.
Why?
Your proposal is illogical. You are basically proposing to reduce to zero the toll paid by Long Island commuters into Manhattan and to force everyone from NJ to pay double. That makes no sense whatsoever.
All bridges need to be maintained and that costs money, therefore each bridge should be tolled to pay for its maintenance. I am OK with different tolls on different bridges if maintenance on some bridges is cheaper than on others. If a bridge prices too low then there will not be enough money to maintain it while the increased traffic will cause more wear and tear eventually making the bridge fall apart (or be closed as a safety precaution). When that happens the other bridges get all the traffic and someone gets to consider building a new one if it makes business sense. I am OK with that, but the non-free bridges subsidizing what you call the “free bridges” is not a way to go because I suspect that at least 20-30% if the traffic on Queensboro is from people who have another but tolled alternative available to them that is closer.
The toll for Long Island commuters into Manhattan doesn’t change, except for an extremely narrow subsection of people willing to go from Queens to Manhattan via the Bronx (They get a “free ride” because RFK would no longer be tolled. They also likely spend more money in avoiding the toll than what the cost of the toll is.) People taking the free bridge will continue to take the free bridge and people taking the tolled tunnel will see zero change in their toll rates.Sorry, I forgot about the Manhattan span. That should remain tolled, it’s strictly Bronx-Queens travel that I would like to render free under this plan.
For Staten Islanders, their tolls to actually access (or leave, if bi-directional tolling is instated) their community go from whatever the current rate is to zero. Similarly, NJ residents going anywhere other than Manhattan see their toll rates go from $14+ to zero, as they now have a free option to cross the moat as it were.
NJ commuters driving into Manhattan is not really a group I’m particularly concerned about. Actually, any commuters choosing to drive into Manhattan should pay dearly for that decision, instead of spreading the cost of driving into Manhattan around to people traveling between the outer boroughs and people who aren’t even entering New York except as an unfortunate consequence of the fact that there’s no way to get from New Jersey to Connecticut that doesn’t involve New York somehow.
I could be persuaded to accept tolls on the Queensboro Bridge, but it is important that – instead of merely reducing the tolls – the tolls to access Staten Island go away.
Isn’t the current Staten Island resident toll rate about their share of the cost of maintaining the bridge? And you want to cut it to zero, and do the same for all the inter-outerboro bridges? Are you asking for a hike in the income tax or property taxes to cover the maintenance on all the new free bridges? Why should the tolls go away?
“Are you asking for a hike in the income tax or property taxes to cover the maintenance on all the new free bridges?”
That would be ideal, yes. Both are far too low in Manhattan.
Sorry, I forgot that the Manhattan span is also part of the RFK bridge. That should remain tolled.
And I could be persuaded to accept tolls on the Queensboro bridge, but the important things here are a) that the cost of driving into and out of Manhattan ought to be borne pretty much entirely by Manhattan and b) that there should be options to permit non-tolled cross-borough travel or travel between NJ and anywhere east of NJ.
The purpose of dropping the tolls on the Verrazzano and Goethals Bridges is to permit untolled movement between Staten Island, New Jersey, and Brooklyn. There are already a number of options for untolled movement between Brooklyn and Queens. Similarly, the goal of dropping tolls off of the RFK bridge was to permit untolled movement between Queens and the Bronx and it was only my stupid error that screwed that up.
If you drop those three tolls, then there’s an untolled movement option between four of five boroughs and New Jersey, which will ideally funnel traffic away from Manhattan. Ideally, you’d stop tolling the Tappan Zee as well and further encourage through traffic to not even come anywhere near inner New York City, but the boat’s sailed on that.
It’s gonna cost 6 billion-ish to replace the Tappan Zee. Why shouldn’t the people who use it pay for it?
We shouldn’t build the Tappan Zee on the backs of its users.
People in Rockland and Westchester pay taxes so they will be paying for it one way or another. Most people who live in Rockland County work in Rockland County. The biggest work destination is Manhattan, then Bergen County and then Westchester. Ten, twelve billion for ARC was too much money but six billion for a lot less people is okay. Why not give them free gas too?
Like I said, the boat’s sailed on not tolling the Tappan Zee.
Were it not too late to re-evaluate our options? I’d say that the federal government and both states have a prevailing interest in enabling travel over the Hudson River and it should fall on the government to pay for a free crossing, and (moving beyond the scope of this debate) to fix the broken Highway Trust Fund so that the government can continue to subsidize infrastructure into perpetuity. By the way, I want the same thing for the national rail network and especially for urban transit. This isn’t about modes but about the government’s responsibility to maintain its infrastructure and enable its citizens to travel.
And, again, the influence of a “free option” shouldn’t be discounted in luring vehicles well outside of New York City, because the ultimate goal is to keep vehicular traffic that doesn’t need to go to NYC well outside of NYC. Especially in the case of Manhattan, I think tolling bridges and tolling freeways can be useful as a sin tax to encourage alternative behaviors – but I don’t believe tolling should be counted on as a primary (or even secondary) source of funding.
No one is stopping anyone from putting their kayak on their back, walking down to the river and paddling across. The Thurway Authority is never going to raise tolls again, ever? Why not free parking in Manhattan for anyone who wants to use it?
I haven’t seen my cousins in California in a few years. Why should I pay airfare to go see them? It would create all sorts of economic activity because we’d to out to eat a few times and buy more wine than usual. Alon over on Pedestrian Observations has relationships all over the world. Why shouldn’t he get free flights to Singapore? Why does the trip have to be on a subsonic airplane?
Why two states? The Cross Westchester and Tappan Zee are very very valuable to Connecticut. Rather important to the rest of New England and probably the Maritimes. ( Those french fries packaged in New Brunswick and Maine get to markets in Philadelphia somehow. )
Why can’t the way we pay for roads be fuel taxes and tolls? It will discourage use which means less maintenance, less expansion and less congestion which means less maintenance and less expansion. Nothing we can do about it now but why weren’t the tolls high enough for the past few decades to fund the replacement of the TZ? It’s not a surprise that it would need to be replaced.
Tolling bridges both ways is potentially a big waste – if people have to cross the bridge both ways, better to collect double the toll one way, and not waste their time the other way. Of course, this relies on all other nearby bridges also being tolled in the same direction. But there are no other bridges anywhere near the GWB, for instance, so nobody is going to detour around the GWB in one direction just to avoid a toll…
Thanks to the magic of electronic toll collection, now no time is wasted because tolls are collected at speed.
There’s also something unsettling about the premise that we’re going to double toll in one direction because we know you’ll be back, even though it is true that the majority of trips would be round-trips.
Thanks to the magic of electronic toll collection, now no time is wasted because tolls are collected at speed.
Agreed. The fact that the whole “toll booths? fuggedaboutit!” complaint is still being kicked around just proves to me that Sam Schwartz is better off pushing for full replacement of all existing toll booths with high-speed EZ-Pass in order to smooth the way for congestion pricing, rather than spending year after year spinning his wheels lobbying Albany and City Hall to implement his MoveNY plan.
“He claims to be concerned that Move New York doesn’t “address transit starved communities,” but without the dedicated revenue, the MTA doesn’t have the money to begin to implement improvements.”
Oh its far worse than that. Given debt and pension costs, and assuming the MTA plans to borrow for every capital plans, without ever increasing revenue sources the MTA cannot maintain its existing system.
These politicians are demanding to know what they get for all the extra money. The right answer is 20 years of inflated prices for contractors, no general revenues for the capital program, big cuts in the fare relative to inflation, a huge pension increase for transit workers in 2000, and TWU wages rising faster than the wages of those who pay for them.
They sucked and sucked and sucked and robbed the future. But it isn’t the future anymore. Unless people are willing to say so, all this will never be understood.
One silver lining of fare hikes is they might make a real dent in Cuomo’s Reaganesque mystique. More likely they’ll push something to close the gap at the last second, probably a debt issuance. Or the legislature could act overwhelmingly in support of MoveNY.
Goldfeder isn’t a transit ally. He wants RBB reactivation to keep transit improvements off Woodhaven Blvd.
I kinda find this all fascinating to watch unfold because this was foretold 20 or so years ago. And that tale is once NYS started cutting back on MTA funding, the MTA had to incur debt to continue its capital program, and of course at some point, there would be too much debt to continue in this manner. It seems as if we’re just about there.
Plus, there’s this dynamic of a cost in-efficient bureaucracy responsible for billions of tax and fare paying dollars v. its boss, Gov. Cuomo, who at a recent business presentation stated that he wants to get things done and doesn’t accept government largess, inefficiency nod wastefulness.
That’s seems why he’s playing hardball here, and actually, and I’ve been highly critical of him, he has a very valid point. Why should he throw the MTA $15bn when the real number is going to end up being closer to $45bn and projects are always late?
“Gov. Cuomo, who at a recent business presentation stated that he wants to get things done and doesn’t accept government largess, inefficiency nod wastefulness.”
Except on the Long Island Railroad, where he ordered the MTA to pay up with no end to the various schemes and grifts.
Someone else said it best. He has Reagan’s attitude with regard to funding the MTA, but he’s a Tammany Hall Democrat with regard to its efficiency.
Perhaps he could go after management, and demand a long wage freeze with a huge cut in pay relative to inflation, and a big cut in staff. Except, of course, that was already done — by the man he pushed out.
Reagan, Bush, Cuomo-Christie (one monster, two heads), and most other newfangled neoliberals all exhibit the same delusions. They are Dunning-Krugered to the bone, so much that they know in their hearts they can’t be wrong. Their faith that the private sector can fix everything is unshakable, and their definition of competence is surrounding themselves with sycophants who share their worldview. As luck would have it, saiud sycophants will cheerfully be willing to fix the problem of government spending – as long as they’re paid high consulting fees or at least six figure public sector salaries to do so.
Even somewhat fiscally competent Bloomberg, specifically his pet turd Doctoroff but also many others, had some of those qualities. Tammany was just greedy.
Except on the Long Island Railroad, where he ordered the MTA to pay up with no end to the various schemes and grifts.
I was going through this Independent Auditor’s Review Report a few days ago, and the LIRR numbers were ridiculous.
http://web.mta.info/mta/budget.....ialsQ3.pdf
Plan Description — The Long Island Rail Road Plan for Additional Pensions (“the LIRR Plan”) is a single-employer defined benefit pension plan that provides retirement, disability and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries.
The MTA Long Island Rail Road contributes additional amounts based on actuarially determined amounts that are designed to accumulate sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. The current rate is 361.12% of annual covered payroll. (pg. 40)
As of January 1, 2013, the most recent actuarial valuation date, the LIRR Plan was 24.1% funded. (pg. 41)
Why isn’t this a huge story?
And why isn’t there a public discussion of in what form NYC residents need to be made worse off to pay for all of this, instead of having it all under the table?
This is the same crowd that pillaged NYC and left it in ruins. Then their descendents moved out to Long Island and repeated the trick, but they still are making NYC pay for it. In part because they still control the state legislative offices in NYC.
compared to London the fares are ridiculously cheap, for the affluent a 100% raise in fares would still be cheaper than the alternative
Of course, for the working poor, fare hikes would be very damaging. Presumably there might be a way to have a two tier pricing system with a cheap metro card for those on low income, but I can’t think of an easy way to implement it.
This is my first comment here but I do love your blog, it amazes me that we are in such an egregious mess,and so few people seem to care
The people it impacts care. The politicians don’t because few of them use the system. But the riding public generally don’t understand the political structure of the MTA much less who’s in charge, so they don’t know where to direct their ire, so the neglecting poles get a free pass even as they wantonly undermine transit. A mess indeed.
Haven’t you heard? de Blasio and Cuomo are “the two most powerful men in the state” and the only politics that exist since de Blasio’s election, according to the NYC media, is an endless, possibly imaginary personality conflict with nothing at stake.
First off, Queens in not a ‘transit-desert’, which was the language used by the Queens group in their interviews yesterday. Second, for the people who live in queens and work in Manhattan, the preponderance take public transit into the city. Also, even though car ownership is higher in queens that in brooklyn (off the top of my head 60% or so of all households own a car in queens), buses are also a huge part of life in queens. I always find that interesting when I am coming from Brooklyn to see my mom out in flushing.
Many queens politicians complain about transit, but do nothing to make the necessary changes to improve it–i.e. funding mechanisms, BRT opposition, even simple plazas and pedestrian safety improvements. This little narrative about the struggling worker from queens driving into Manhattan to get to work because there is no other option is asinine. Its sad that it has become their symbol to invoke in this fight because if they spent anytime seeing how much time is lost on overcrowded trains and buses that sit in traffic full of people, they would realize how their policies are harming their constituents
You are completely ignoring getting around Queens by mass transit. There are few subways, so most have to rely on a bus system that is oriented only to get you to the subway. Getting around by bus requires more than two buses and multiple fares for any trips. This is a far greater problem in Queens than in any of the other boroughs. Service levels are also much worse. The Steinway Street bus operates in a major commercial center. Yet the bus operates only at 20 minute intervals when it doesn’t bunch. In any other borough, on such a busy street, the headways would be at least every 10 minutes.
This is why car ownership in Queens is so high. Because mass transit sucks. And to pretend that SBS will solve problems is wrong. It hasn’t worked on most other routes. Bus lanes are not enforced and ridership on mst SBS routes is down.
All the Queens politicians are looking for are assurances that Move NY would help them. They are being perfectly reasonable and they are not being obstructionists in the least.
I just want to add that the vast majority of the population in Queens lives within one mile of rail rapid transit (approximate 60% within a half mile). Most commercial districts are located along or near these arteries.
The registration of automobiles in Queens is high compared to the other boroughs because the city encourages it. Unbalanced tolls and ridiculous parking policies, zoning create an unsustainable situation.
http://furmancenter.org/files/.....202010.pdf
This says 50.9% of units within half mile of a rail station. (LIRR or subway)
http://furmancenter.org/files/.....le_NYC.pdf
This says 46% of units within half mile of a subway entrance.
Where do you get 60% from?
Excuse me, 50.9%. I previously read that figure as 59% after a quick glance. Even if 46% of the units are within a half mile of a subway station, the majority of units and the population of Queens resides near rail rapid transit. The rest have buses.
So no, not a transportation desert as described.
And honestly, who cares. If you choose to live far from more convenient mass transportation, you chose travel time over costs. We can’t decide policy according to a minorityof city residents. The vast majority of New Yorkers benefit from the Move NY plan.
Correction, “lower cost over travel time.” Well aren’t I also over the place today.
Thanks MTA!
Wasn’t trying to be snark, just curious.
Are the units near the train stations as highly occupied as the units further away from them?
Just because you’re near a subway doesn’t mean it’s useful for your trip. Not everyone works in Manhattan.
Slow, overcrowded, unreliable buses. MoveNY’s carrot is focused on the few people who take express buses or LIRR to Manhattan. When people talk about Queens being a transit desert that’s not the trip they are complaining about.
Those costs are due in large part to zoning, dictated by a minority of city residents.
We shouldn’t. But we do.
Yes they would. The majority of Queens residents would benefit. A super majority of Queens drivers would benefit, or at least not be hurt.
If almost 50% of people reside within a half mile of rail rapid transit, although I do not have a link, judging by the historical construction of Queens I feel I’m safe to say that the majority of residents in that borough live near a subway station.
But you’re right, not every trip is headed to Manhattan, but most amenities and the most populated areas are located around subway stations.
I agree that the buses are a problem (slow) but where are these politicians when it comes to expanding SBS in Queens? When it comes to implementing more aggressive SBS like protected bus only lanes?
Why come out against Move NY, it’s illogical.
Complaining about losing parking or general traffic lanes.
The problem with buses isn’t just the average speed. The standard deviation on trip time is ridiculous. I used to take the Q88 a lot. Q44/20 to Q46 would have been much less walking, limited stops at both ends and for the transfer, but waiting for two buses made it much less reliable. The Q88 is supposed to come every ten minutes. I frequently had to wait along the service road of the LIE for 30 minutes for a bus that would of course arrive uncomfortably crowded. No place to sit. No protection from the elements. No protection from the noise of the highway. If I walk fifteen feet back to stand somewhere less unpleasant the bus driver won’t see me and will just drive by. Decent viewing angles, so I could pop back and forth easier than along most routes. It’s a miserable experience. It’s why I learned to ride a bike.
Bustime and SBS implementations help somewhat. Still a long way to go to make bus service less painful though. Every half mile or at the most heavily used stops it would be nice to have an enclosed waiting area. Take parking spots to make room if there isn’t enough on the sidewalk.
My (completely unsubstantiated) theory is too many city employees are still getting free parking, and they form a base of support for certain electeds. A ten mile car commute from eastern Queens to midtown might cost a private sector worker with a fancy car $0.75 a mile driving, a $5.54 toll in the tunnel, and $20-30 for parking. Round trip $45-55 a day, about half for parking. If you’re a city employee with a cheaper car at $0.50 per mile, free parking, and you get off the LIE to take the free bridge, your daily commute runs $10 a day. The toll more than doubles that, but doesn’t hit the rich guy already taking the tunnel.
Car ownership in Queens is high because cars are a constantly-promoted status symbol in this country. And many of the cars are in fact uninsured or have fraudulent insurance. Of course, there are many uses for a car and many time-saving occasions, but is it objectively worth it, financially? In many cases, no.
And Queens has poor transit compared to what? Manhattan? Part of the problem is talking about Queens as a single entity when the Rockaways have little to do with the rest of it, for example.
What these Queens politicians are doing is no different than what politicians around the city do all the time: bash the MTA (with some justification) and take the side of drivers, who actually vote and have money to contribute. It’s the same everywhere (see: Jumaane Williams and Utica Ave. Subway extension). They can’t get too strongly behind the MTA because they might be expected to contribute more funds to it, and they’re such poor budgeters that they can’t manage the finances as-is.
Yes, this is an important social factor but the city could nip it in the butt by requiring residential parking permits, increase the costs of parking, eliminating parking, and tolling the Manhattan CBD.
And I agree, poor quality politicians defending an unsustainable status quo.
buses are also a huge part of life in queens.
And this is a huge problem, because buses are cost in-efficient and run at about 5mph thanks to their reliance on antiquated routes that make stops every 500 feet, and an antiquated fare payment system that leaves 3-5 min of dwell time at the beginning of heavy routes and major transfer points.
Northeast Queens needs a subway. It’ll likely never happen in my lifetime, but buses aren’t an adequate mode of transport in subway-starved sections of Queens.
Northeast Queens has the port washington branch. MoveNY lowers fares for in city trips. They should be lowered further to a metrocard swipe. Add in good bike infrastructure and parking at the stations (much more feasible than car parking) and most people could bike to a station.
The residents of Northeast Queens won’t put up with construction of a subway through their neighborhoods… Nor do they want the upzoning that would occur.
I think this board has the consensus right. Everyone is at fault here. You’ve got the dream combination: Bloated, incompetent MTA, fares which are absolutely very cheap by global standards (but everyone complaining how high they are), TWU labor costs rising faster than inflation, corrupt unions and construction companies inflating the sky out of any capital project and then not delivering even remotely on time, equally corrupt politicians who love cars, stymieing transit improvements or any idea to increase funding via new tolls or congestion pricing. All this presided over by a Governor who – at his core – is a car guy who doesn’t give a damn about public transit, and a mayor more worried about banning horse-drawn cabs. It’s really unique to NY. A global city that views it’s essential mass-transit infrastructure as a political and patronage football, and accepts third-world (or lower) standards for the traveling public. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
“Everyone is at fault here.”
Except the younger generations who will be victimized by it all.
Interesting how congestion is so commonplace in this city that it is no longer an issue?
Earth to New York City, “I’m choking here!”
Not only does Move NY offer a financial incentive for implementation but the city would be much better off economically, socially and environmentally, including public health.
Don’t say that to those in Albany. They want NYC under water ASAP it seems.
Not true… NYC is the cash cow of Albany. Just the same way China doesn’t want the US to fail – contrary to some political thoughts – because they want us to pay off our debt – and we buy so much of the goods made there.
Ugh. Stonewalling politicians.
In no universe does it make sense to charge tolls for a couple tunnels into Manhattan while bridges right next door are completely free – except the universe of everyone profiting from this scheme, i.e. drivers who shunpike to get into Manhattan for free and will fight to the death for their right to do so. Follow the money, eh?
Nevermind that under the proposed plan, traffic would improve, and travel to Staten Island and The Bronx from Queens and Brooklyn would become less expensive. Nope, gotta preserve the free rides. 😐
That said I can somewhat understand opposition on the mindset of “this is just an excuse to raise tolls everywhere and give the MTA more of our money to waste”. Since, well, that’s not an incorrect assessment – as planned, total collected tolls would increase, and with more crossings tolled, the potential for all prices to be jacked back up in the future is created. A plan that makes bridges like the Whitestone, Throggs Neck, etc. free instead of cheaper might be more politically palatable, since it would move the free rides instead of eliminating them. I would even favor this simply on the account that it would improve traffic and just make more sense. But it wouldn’t raise revenues so it still leaves us with budget issues to solve.
Meanwhile with regards to said budget issues, I don’t get how one minute we’re discussing why construction costs are way too high and the next we’re discussing how to best raise more money to cover construction costs. Correct the former and the latter will become unnecessary.
Because the reality is that no matter HOW you raise revenues, one way or another it drains money out of the economy and stifles growth. Our region has a robust enough economy that we can bear a lot of revenue raising without it causing a meltdown, but even then there is a limit. Construction costs in NYC are unsustainable. Unless we can get them under control and more in line with what they are elsewhere, the city is going to fall apart again like it did in the 70s and 80s – except this time it won’t be due to out of control crime, it will be because we can’t afford to build or maintain anything.
Making congested bridges free isn’t a formula to make them less congested.
Utterly ridiculous politicians. How is lower tolls on the Whitestone and Throggs Neck bridges not helping residents of Queens??? I can’t even wrap my head around the folly. Also – a better transit system overall benefits everyone in NYC – including people in Queens. Where will that funding come from without MOVE NY???
From raising income and/or property tax levels within Manhattan to appropriate levels, which they are nowhere near close to right now.
You expect to change tax rates in Manhattan and not the other 4 boroughs? Single family homes – which predominate in Queens more than any borough except Staten Island – have relatively lower taxes than condos. Plus tax rates have little to do with what property owners pay. Their tax bills are still going up.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/a.....cap-to-nyc
Taxes are plain high in NY altogether.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/a.....he-country