Comments on: MTA Says it Needs More Money for Congestion Pricing

By: JF

JF — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:07:24 +0000

Gecko, the big increase in capital costs is (1) buses (mostly express buses) to serve the transit-poor areas, (2) depots to maintain the buses, and (3) more subway cars. Are all those buses necessary? I don't know enough to judge. I will be happy to see the increased bus service, though. The MTA is planning to junk 1,622 subway cars next year. I know it costs money to maintain old equipment, but it wouldn't cost $200 million to keep 50 of the best-preserved cars around for four more years, would it? Finally, "The Voice" says "You heard it here first." I did hear it here first, but it was ten months ago. You wouldn't be McCaffrey, would you? Seriously, Streetsblog has been giving plenty of attention to McCaffrey, Weprin, Brodsky, Dinowitz and everyone else who calls this a "scam." Why do you think you're telling us something we haven't heard a hundred times already? The only thing I can think of in response to this: find the funding. Isn't there some highway widening on Long Island that can be put on hold for a few years?

By: gecko

gecko — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:02:24 +0000

Not clear how such a small increase in the number of transit riders causes such a big increase in MTA capital costs?

In any case, since reported bicycle ridership jumped from 130,000 to 500,000 during the transit strike, perhaps the MTA should seriously investigate this as a possible solution for projected capacity problems?

By: The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:31:25 +0000

O jmc, he who laughs last laughs best, and as regards "congestion pricing," I fear that I will indeed laugh last...

150 million here, 150 million there, pretty soon you're talking REAL money, and this boondoggle isn't even off the ground!

I say again with emphasis: SCAM SCAM SCAM

By: Clarence Eckerson

Clarence Eckerson — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:46:25 +0000

I just realized March 28th is implementation day. It's also my birthday. It better be a good birthday present.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:47:56 +0000

Permit parking fees will cover some of this...as will putting back the tolls on the East River bridges. CP cannot be introduced without some other changes to streets-use policy.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:39:52 +0000

Here's a crazy idea. How 'bout the MTA rescind the deal to sell Brooklyn's Vanderbilt rail yard to developer Bruce Ratner for $50 million less than what rival bidder Extell Development offered, and $114.5 million less than the MTA's own appraisal of the property? Nah, that'd make too much sense. Better to raise fares and let the working class subsidize a privately run basketball arena.

By: jmc

jmc — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:50:01 +0000

The voice of reason? hahahahahaha

By: The voice of Reason

The voice of Reason — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:50:23 +0000

Congestion pricing
is a TOTAL scam, my friends...
You heard it here first!!

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:13:38 +0000

By the way, did the MTA's proposal include funding for secure bicycle parking at subway stations proximate to areas beyond walking distance of the subway, such as southeast Brooklyn and southwestern Queens? If not, the bike advocates ought to get on that.

It might be hard to do on the IRT and BMT, but the IND stations have the room on their overdesigned mezzanines, particularly in locations where the second phase of the IND was supposed to hook in.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:10:36 +0000

So they are saying they want an additional $150 million per year in aid to increase transit service and service debt for additional improvments, over and above their existing plans. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

People seem to be adding up annual costs ($50 million over 100 years is $5 billion if you don't discount it), and combining it with capital costs, or something.

Compared with the hole in the MTA budget for keeping service at current levels and keeping the system from collapse, especially after the real estate transfer taxes regress to the mean, that isn't much.