Funny thing is, he HAD my vote, when he didn’t have many others. I voted for him in the last primary, going against the foolish win-by-race calculus that so many Democrats embarrassingly embraced. And so much has changed since then! Thanks to Streetsblog we can know very well (without being city politics spectators) where candidates stand on street-level issues. On and off the internet people are rapidly changing how they think about the streets they own and the cars they don’t, and if Weiner doesn’t get with it he’s going to lose a lot of votes aside from mine.

“So someone started out saying Weiner was dishonest and as the debate has continued he has become stupid.”

Actually, I think he’s turning into one of those horrible closeted pricing supporters. So he’s back to “dishonest”–along with everyone else in the game. But I object to the idea that we should get behind a man who has been particularly destructive to pricing instead of those who have been silent or lukewarm in their support. (I also object to throwing coming-out metaphors at a prominent lesbian that in fact apply to everyone, for what that’s worth.)

Anyone who cares about sustainable transportation in this city had better be prepared to support someone else if Weiner wins the Democratic nomination. I don’t think we can trust the Republicans to nominate someone as thoughtful as Bloomberg any time soon. Can we agree now on finding a competent pro-livable streets, pro-congestion-pricing candidate who would be willing to run against Weiner on the Green, and hopefully Working Families, lines?

There’s zero chance of a federal gas tax increase. ZERO. Weiner may as well suggest building a bridge to the moon; equally feasible politically.

And about permits-when does Weiner take his constituents of a mostly of a certain religious background who all claim to be “emergency” vehicles complete with light and sirens and parking plaques zipping in and out of traffic across Brooklyn and Queens? It’s frankly a miracle oen or more of these knuckleheads haven’t yet killed pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.

If you want to buy what Weiner is selling you, good luck. Just don’t complain when he totally dissappoints you.

increased transportation, and higher truck tolls were already a part of the bloomberg congestion plan.

congestion needs to be discouraged. higher truck tolls are not going to keep trucks out, without establishing a cheaper alternative to trucking.

cheaper mass transit isn’t going to solve the problem without other changes such as tolls, road regulations, and parking regulations.

If I am wrong on any of this, please let me know.

The situation as you describe where pols get something for nothing has been going on for years. That’s why NJ is in $30 billion of debt. The 2008 budget has $2.7 billion in debt service payments. Hopefully freeing this up would allow the state to go more PAYGO.

Its different than the tobbaco settlement or the skyway because the revenue can be adjusted with asset monetization whereas the others it is one time and fixed.

No, I believe it is stealing from FUTURE transportation funding. That is the state would get money up front, which would cover transporation needs over the next few years, but would give up tolls for a much longer period of time.

That’s the way it worked on the Chicago Tollway. That is what happened to all future New York tobacco settlement money, which has already been spent.

And that is what I fear. What a way for current pols to become popular — something for nothing!

If all this means is that a private entity charges tolls instead of a public one, than it is indeed ridiculous but not catastrophic.

I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but NJ does not really fund transit through tolls. As I mentioned earlier, only $12 million of the $895 trust fund revenue comes from tolling. The other $40 million that the toll road agencies contribute to the state go to NJDOT, not NJ Transit specifically. AFAICT, most of the $300 million in direct operating assistance that NJ Transit is appropriated from general revenue. If you have any evidence to support your claim, please give it. I don’t think its intentional, but that type of unsubstantiated rhetoric ends up being used as FUD just like the wild claims of C.P. opponents.

The plan that Corzine is supposed unveil, as far as I can tell, neither sells nor leases the roads. They still would be owned and operated by the state. It is also incorrect to suggest that it is stealing from current transportation funding. It is not a zero-sum game. Because raising tolls is a political issue, toll hikes have been irregular and not indexed in any sense to inflation (for example, the Parkway tolls have not risen since the 1980s). Asset monetization would force regular toll raises that would likely not have occurred otherwise.

The goal is to take all of the money those tolls would provide for transportation in the future and spending it right now. That is the only real difference, aside from having some private entity to blame for toll increases.

New Jersey has already been doing this by borrowing against future transportation revenues, and using those revenues to pay for past transportation spending rather than current transportation spending.

So has NY. Look at the budget NY State road “trust fund.” More and more of the money goes for interest. In New Jersey, they are approaching a point where ALL of the money will go for interest, and NONE to maintain the roads or funds transit. NOTHING, except those tolls, and now they want to blow those.

It’s a generational war.

See, it’s stuff like that that makes me think NYPD and Traffic Enforcement will NEVER, EVER, without radical changes, have any integrity when it comes to enforcing traffic/parking rules.

I concede that you are correct about the name calling. That being said, I still maintain that the statement itself is dishonest. This is different than Bloomberg, at least at the public level because USDOT was the one that set the deadline and Bloomberg was repeating what USDOT said. To say that federal funding will decrease as a result of more available local funding is in direct contradiction of publically available information about how federal transit funding works is more than misleading and quite frankly, insults the intelligence of anyone who follows these things.

But it does not follow to say that it was dishonest to say that the federal matching piece is a red herring. Was it honest of the Mayor to hold it over Silver’s head as if it was a threat. That line fell like a led zepplin and weakened the good government thrust of what was being proposed. My point is that the name calling only strengthens the opponents although I understand your frustration when what seem like plain and simple facts are ignored.

There are vested interests in the outer boroughs especially in the former two fare zones who clearly, and honestly believe that CP disadvantages them. Their position is being hardened and deepened. Calling them stupid isn’t doing helping win them over. They have lots of votes and Weiner is counting them.

Turns out there is a very high administrative cost to the system proposed by the Mayor and Port Authority is going to skim $2 of it from the get go. Everyone knows that tolling the bridges has a much greater bang for the buck but prevailing wisdom had that it wouldn’t go through Albany.

The political beauty in what Weiner argues about the Federal Government is that it marries so nicely with the basic thrust of everyone in this argument “someone else should pay” for the MTA capital plan. It can even qualify as polygamy if you include the basic thrust of the anti-fare increase jihad led by the tabloids today cheered on by the NYTimes.

The longer we postpone identifying where the future MTA Capital money will come from the more likely that it will continue to be increasingly from the fare box. Thats where the dishonesty in the everyone’s arguments lies.

The way that federal transit funding works is the exact opposite as the way he describes it, is it not? If so, he is either being dishonest or “uninformed” and should not be making the claims that he does.

Your theories about how future federal transit formulas might work may or may not turn out to be true. I have not heard anything about any legislation pending that would change FTA new starts funding to need based rather than merit (and local contribution) based. Given the lack of concrete evidence showing such a dramatic change is in the books, I think that its pretty evident that his statement is patently false.

Maybe politicians who are out front opposing CP are too stupid for you. My point is that closeted supporters do not help you and will not help Quinn, Stringer or Thompson when it comes election time. I certainly don’t think Weiner is stupid, far from it. And, you are correct, his position continues to evolve and become more nuanced. Thats one way to deflect the issue. I think its safe to assume Weiner is ready to let your vote go.

So someone started out saying Weiner was dishonest and as the debate has continued he has become stupid. I think he is making progress. Transportation issues are very complex politically and often counter-intuitive. A lot of people hold the beliefs that Weiner and others perpetuate. Calling them dishonest and stupid will only help them in the eyes of their automobile favoring voters.

By starting a fight he seems unable to finish the wise and honest (in your eyes at least) Mayor Bloomberg may have assured that the next administration will get elected by poking holes in his poorly developed proposal. And, by waving the Federal contribution under the voters noses he thought they would automatically follow the trail. It hasn’t happened yet.