The congestion pricing fees were slated to go into capital programs, not operations. So that would be a very weird way for the MTA to attempt to hide their unsustainability, given that the money wouldn't be available for operational costs.
I don't particularly disagree about the city deserving the money instead. But that would have to come with MTA giving NYCT back to the city, and that is unlikely to happen.
there is at least $2 bln hole due to loss of CP, even after excluding all capital projects and new equipment purchases. And equipment replacement is operational cost, it is not capital project, because in every organization part some part of budget msut be allocated for equipment replacement.
" even if the MTA were to forego purchasing new subway cars, commuter rail locomotives and buses, the agency would still be $2 billion in the hole."
Yes, that’s the hole that state and local funding has left. The third picture in the post shows this pretty clearly.
I have no particular reason to believe that the MTA is an efficient organization. They definitely aren’t. But I also haven’t seen any outstanding evidence of corruption getting worse in the last few years (and lots of evidence to the contrary, vis a vis criminal punishments for OT fraud). The MTA’s operational cost appears to be mostly stagnant, with a decline in local and state budgeting causing the gap, not a rise in waste on their side.
I am curious to learn your opinion: why not simply raise fares, tolls, and add additional tax on companies/payroll/property tax ?
if transit is so beneficial for everyone, as CP advocates claim, people should be happy to pay up to keep their beloved MTA afloat.
Universal tolls will work the same as congestion pricing, arguably even stronger effect and discourage driving across Manhattan.
I don't understand why these tricks with congestion, when the argument is basically we need money for MTA, and nobody actually cares about clean air at MTA.
As much as I object CP, I think honest communication about pathetic cost and budget problem would be more productive. and solution sourcing money from multiple sources via combination of fares, tolls, taxes would dampen an individual effect of a single measure.
Much easier to swallow $200/yr increase in payroll tax, $200/yr increase in tolls, $200/yr increase in fares, rather than $2000/yr charge for CP (because it would apply to smaller population)
Well, the general idea is that it's presumably beneficial to apply a CP charge on net. You discourage people from driving into the city where there's insufficient capacity to move all of the vehicles efficiently.
It's basically pricing an externality that is not normally priced in most cases.
The tax collection is probably the main motivation, but there's going to be significant benefits for many regardless of that - spending less time in traffic, less car usage, etc etc.
I would be more comfortable with separating these two ideas:
1. If NYC wants to bailout MTA and fund capital projects - they should pay from general budget/taxes/fares directly
2. if NYC wants to reduce driving - they should introduce CP indepedendently of MTA's capital improvements plan, and don't tie these revenues to MTA at all.
Start from a small charge like $1, then hike to $5, then $10, then $15 and observe change in motorist behavior and congestion observed.
Does anyone actually knows what metrics are used for measure "congestion" and what are expected change in said metric? Its all hand waving and wishful thinking wrapped in earth hugging religion.
MTA would have weird incentives, like they can break down trains to CBD, and force people to take Uber/cab to get to work and trigger congestion pricing tolls and watch $$$ going directly to MTA, while they are slowly doing "maintenance and repairs".
MTA must NOT be financially incentivized to cause transportation collapse and make $mln every time public transit is broken, and people are using cars.
Arguably, the incentive should be the opposite (via fares). The better MTA's service is - more passengers and more Fare revenue they receive. This is how a normal healthy transportation agency would finance their capital investments.
"The better MTA's service is - more passengers and more Fare revenue they receive. This is how a normal healthy transportation agency would finance their capital investments."
[citation needed]
That may be how it works in a consumer product, but not how it works in transit.
I don't particularly disagree about the city deserving the money instead. But that would have to come with MTA giving NYCT back to the city, and that is unlikely to happen.