Comments on: Theodore Kheel: My Proposal to Robert Moses http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: crzwdjk http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-30460 crzwdjk Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:29:22 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/#comment-30460 There are two kinds of expense in running a transit system: capital and operational. Operational expenses consist of paying to run the trains, clean the stations, collect the fares, and so on. Capital expenses are those for building new lines, as well as buying new trains and performing major system upgrades. These two sets of expenses are generally funded separately, and fares are only intended to cover operational expenses. In the case of automobiles, a similar split also holds: operational expenses are paid for by the driver, and to some extent also by the rest of society bearing the cost of pollution and congestion. Capital expenses have, however, been paid for by the government, traditionally with the federal government covering 90% of the expense of building a new highway. For transit the situation has been different, with the federal government paying for around 50% of the cost, and that only for a few projects and only if the right senators are given their free lunches. And intercity rail gets almost no capital funding at all, with the actual amount being determined by how much Amtrak can beg from Congress in that particular year. Just changing federal funding priorities would accomplish a great deal. And building new transit is probably the best way to get people to ride it, including getting more passengers on the lines that are already there. If you replace fares with some kind of cross-subsidy from drivers, you end up with increased transit ridership, and in fact higher operational costs because of it. But you get no new funds for capital programs, and transit lines have limited capacity. In NYC, a free subway will almost certainly cause ridership to exceed the existing system capacity, resulting in overcrowding and unreliable service. I think it is best when people take transit because it is better, not because it is free. There are two kinds of expense in running a transit system: capital and operational. Operational expenses consist of paying to run the trains, clean the stations, collect the fares, and so on. Capital expenses are those for building new lines, as well as buying new trains and performing major system upgrades. These two sets of expenses are generally funded separately, and fares are only intended to cover operational expenses.
In the case of automobiles, a similar split also holds: operational expenses are paid for by the driver, and to some extent also by the rest of society bearing the cost of pollution and congestion. Capital expenses have, however, been paid for by the government, traditionally with the federal government covering 90% of the expense of building a new highway. For transit the situation has been different, with the federal government paying for around 50% of the cost, and that only for a few projects and only if the right senators are given their free lunches. And intercity rail gets almost no capital funding at all, with the actual amount being determined by how much Amtrak can beg from Congress in that particular year. Just changing federal funding priorities would accomplish a great deal. And building new transit is probably the best way to get people to ride it, including getting more passengers on the lines that are already there.

If you replace fares with some kind of cross-subsidy from drivers, you end up with increased transit ridership, and in fact higher operational costs because of it. But you get no new funds for capital programs, and transit lines have limited capacity. In NYC, a free subway will almost certainly cause ridership to exceed the existing system capacity, resulting in overcrowding and unreliable service. I think it is best when people take transit because it is better, not because it is free.

]]> By: Ethan http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-30444 Ethan Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:13:45 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/#comment-30444 At the very least, this kind of creative thinking about free transit can help dispel the common challenges to subsidies of transit. I think it also puts forth a bold vision for a broader role for transit that brings the conversation out of the quagmire of excuses about costs. Beyond some very basic BRT, it seems we are not really thinking about the much larger role that transit can play and its value as an integral part of the city's public space. The assertion that transit could/should be free may be a challenge to the growing thinking about market based access to mobility, but when you look at the way that the automobile has been allowed to privatize much of our public realm (as a result of subsidies), more heavily subsidized or free transit may be the bold vision necessary to take back that space from the privatization of the automobile. At the very least, this kind of creative thinking about free transit can help dispel the common challenges to subsidies of transit. I think it also puts forth a bold vision for a broader role for transit that brings the conversation out of the quagmire of excuses about costs.

Beyond some very basic BRT, it seems we are not really thinking about the much larger role that transit can play and its value as an integral part of the city’s public space.

The assertion that transit could/should be free may be a challenge to the growing thinking about market based access to mobility, but when you look at the way that the automobile has been allowed to privatize much of our public realm (as a result of subsidies), more heavily subsidized or free transit may be the bold vision necessary to take back that space from the privatization of the automobile.

]]> By: crzwdjk http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-30442 crzwdjk Tue, 03 Apr 2007 07:42:54 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/#comment-30442 I think what we need is a leveling of the playing field between cars and public transit. Drivers need to pay for the full impact of their driving, and at the same time, capital funding needs to be redirected to let public transit catch up to the massive level of investment in highways over the past 50 years. And once the government's favorable treatment of cars is gone, we might even see some profitable subway systems. I think what we need is a leveling of the playing field between cars and public transit. Drivers need to pay for the full impact of their driving, and at the same time, capital funding needs to be redirected to let public transit catch up to the massive level of investment in highways over the past 50 years. And once the government’s favorable treatment of cars is gone, we might even see some profitable subway systems.

]]> By: AD http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-30440 AD Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:47:36 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/#comment-30440 In the ideal world, the subway probably ought not to be free, but since it's free to drive your behemoth Hummer down a street (causing road maintenance issues, congestion issues, danger issues and pollution issues, all of which are paid for by the general population), it ought to be deemed absurd that one must pay money to ride the subway. I have a hunch that the SF Bay Area teenagers who rode the trains during the spare the air days were there as much for the novelty of the free fare as for its low cost, and that if there were spare the air days all the time, they'd become less prevalent. In the ideal world, the subway probably ought not to be free, but since it’s free to drive your behemoth Hummer down a street (causing road maintenance issues, congestion issues, danger issues and pollution issues, all of which are paid for by the general population), it ought to be deemed absurd that one must pay money to ride the subway. I have a hunch that the SF Bay Area teenagers who rode the trains during the spare the air days were there as much for the novelty of the free fare as for its low cost, and that if there were spare the air days all the time, they’d become less prevalent.

]]> By: Charles Siegel http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-30434 Charles Siegel Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:43:52 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/#comment-30434 When there was free transit during "spare the air" days in the SF Bay area, regular transit riders complained that the buses and trains filled up with disruptive teenagers taking excursions just because it was free. Incidentally, of the six freeways in the US that have been removed, two were built by Robert Moses - the West Side Highway in New York, and the Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara Falls. (See www.preservenet.com/freeways) Let's remove the Sheridan and make it three. When there was free transit during “spare the air” days in the SF Bay area, regular transit riders complained that the buses and trains filled up with disruptive teenagers taking excursions just because it was free.

Incidentally, of the six freeways in the US that have been removed, two were built by Robert Moses – the West Side Highway in New York, and the Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara Falls. (See http://www.preservenet.com/freeways) Let’s remove the Sheridan and make it three.

]]> By: crzwdjk http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-30432 crzwdjk Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:04:54 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/02/bridge-and-tunnel-vision/#comment-30432 "only a small portion of transit costs are paid today by fare revenues" Last I checked, it was over 70% of operating costs for the NYC subway. Capital costs are, of course, a separate matter, and do come from taxes. And there are a few good reasons to keep transit fares. First, if transit is free, there will be little internal incentive to improve it. Even a subsidized transit system can be run in a business-like fashion, and as Metro North shows, the results can be quite good. Second, if transit is free, then there will be a sudden increase in ridership, at the expense of other modes. It would mean fewer people drive, yes, but it would also mean that fewer people bike and walk as well. And it would also mean that the already at-capacity subways will be swamped with even more riders, but no new funds to buy more trains and build more tracks. Finally, the more "successful" this scheme is in terms of reducing the number of cars on the road, the further the subway is starved of funding, creating an incentive to keep as many cars on the road as possible while charging them as much as possible. Overall, this just doesn't seem like a good idea. “only a small portion of transit costs are paid today by fare revenues”
Last I checked, it was over 70% of operating costs for the NYC subway. Capital costs are, of course, a separate matter, and do come from taxes. And there are a few good reasons to keep transit fares. First, if transit is free, there will be little internal incentive to improve it. Even a subsidized transit system can be run in a business-like fashion, and as Metro North shows, the results can be quite good. Second, if transit is free, then there will be a sudden increase in ridership, at the expense of other modes. It would mean fewer people drive, yes, but it would also mean that fewer people bike and walk as well. And it would also mean that the already at-capacity subways will be swamped with even more riders, but no new funds to buy more trains and build more tracks. Finally, the more “successful” this scheme is in terms of reducing the number of cars on the road, the further the subway is starved of funding, creating an incentive to keep as many cars on the road as possible while charging them as much as possible. Overall, this just doesn’t seem like a good idea.

]]>