Were I in his shoes, I would be tempted to draw down the MTA’s cash to zero, then shut the system and resign, leaving it to the next guy to propose the next fare increase.

Yes, because that worked so well when LaGuardia did it.

Second Avenue Sagas has a good post about the fare issues:

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/11/21/specter-of-the-5%C2%A2-fare-haunts-the-current-fare-hike-debate/

But notice how Bloomberg takes the hit for his underlings even when they blow it, so they won’t be afraid to do things. Not so here.

Although I agree that keeping the base fare steady and cutting the discounts/upping the unlimited is the way to go here, the way it came down means Sandler looks like a dishonest slime. So, there never was a need to raise the fare! So there never is!

Were I in his shoes, I would be tempted to draw down the MTA’s cash to zero, then shut the system and resign, leaving it to the next guy to propose the next fare increase.

Thank God in my public sector career I never worked directly for (or even close to) a politician.

In the near future, both drivers and transit riders should be reminded that they were unwilling to pay, as consequences arise. And they should be reminded which pols told them they shouldn’t have to.

When CP goes down, it’s time to organize the backlash.

Unfortunately the drivers do feel that the bridge tolls are taxes. They have lots of votes and convincing me won’t convince them but neither would have us calling it a tax. Once they drop $35,000 on their second car they are pretty wired in. And when I go try to explain why those tolls are justified I am often back to the forgone taxes wasted by the space given to their on-ramps as a justification for the transfer of money from their pocket to the budget of the MTA. Everyone in Staten Island thinks that just because the capital cost of the Verrazano was paid off years ago that everything else has been taxation. The TBTA tolls are tolls but they are also pricing. Either term would work but to many people, maybe even most, they are taxes.

Either way I concede to you that I was incorrect that fear of using the word killed it. And I hope it is not dead and I’m doing what I can to pass it. But I always thought it was dead on arrival. I’m trying to decide when to give up the ghost on C.P. and move onto the fuel TAXES as a source for MTA dedicated capital money. Cut and run.

Now as to “whatever beautiful politics you would like to see”. I never asked for a beautiful politics but rather an effective politics. We got nothing. Worse, so far the Mayor has walked away from congestion pricing once it was separated from his holy grail PlaNYC. Great coffee table book though.

When do we get to see the media campaign? My fear is that his bungling politics has so empowered the opposition that it will drive the next Mayoral campaign away from an urbanist agenda and into the arms of the automobilisti.

However, an idea can move by its own momentum and in the likely event that c.p. goes down, whether or not Weiner becomes Mayor, each time people are caught in traffic in future years some of them will remember the concept fondly. Ideally that will turn peoples heads politically in years to come.

The Mayor took a concept that was polling at 46% positive and drove it down to 38% in a few months. By the drop dead date in spring it may be down to George Bushes numbers. The Mayors political approach has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now C.P. is getting a better reception in the suburbs than in the city.

I think it has been an ugly politics.

Quinnipac : “Surprise, surprise! Support grows substantially if pricing prevents a hike in mass transit fares, with 53% supportive and 41% opposed.”

Mmmm…Will the numbers show the need for congestion pricing to close the gap?
This fare increase annoucement timing was masterful. Pearl Harbour theories anyone?

Well, okay it’s not dead and even if it dies we can at least be glad it was made an issue of. In the alternate (and expected) universe where Bloomberg was not visited by the angel of transportation reform last year, it’s not at all likely that c.p. would have been proposed by the next administration and sold with whatever beautiful politics you would like to see. This way more people know what it is and have something to think about when they try to cross streets clogged with largely unnecessary personal cars, possibly leading to a public that chooses more wisely next time it comes up.

As for being afraid to call it a tax, resistance is a good reaction to a hostile imposition of terminology by opponents. If we define tax as anything that takes money from people and gives it to a public entity, then sure, it’s a tax. (I got no problem with taxes, personally.) But there are plenty of things in that category that we never call taxes, like highway tolls or camping fees for a state park. Calling them all just “taxes” is reductional and confusing. Is the aim to reduce spoken English to a hundred words? Tax is simply not the most correct, natural, or even convenient word for pricing, and there’s no reason for supporters to endorse calculated terminology from opponents just because they are, um, afraid to look afraid (is this Democratic party thinking or what?).

In fact pricing supporters have shown plenty of gumption in the way they name and describe the program. Pricing intends to reduce driving by eliminating the trips that are of the least value to drivers and society. It’s exactly that forwardness that “Lew from B…” cited when he said he could never accept pricing (though, I’m sure if we were less honest about the aims and motivations of pricing he’d find some other reason). This isn’t the right angle of self-flagellation, nor do we even need to start on that now.

You’ve got that right. For example, financial firms beginning with Freddie Mac are going to be issuing stock, devaluing the holdings of existing stock holders, to raise capital. But they need capital because they bought back stock at higher prices, while handing out stock options to executives. In the Robber Barron era the executives just issued each other stock. Now they do it in two phases — like the pension enhancements for those with seniority followed some years later by lower pay and benefits for new hires. Don’t have anything to do with each other, do they?

(It also takes a long time to build the sort of civic trust necessary to raise taxes.)

I’m losing that trust. People seem to think the community is a big bag that you try to pay in as little to as possible and suck out as much as possible. Why would I want to pay more into that? What hope is there that it would do any good? What is the proof that my higher tax payments won’t lead to a redistribution of income to those BETTER off than I am? Perhaps that is the ulimate victory of years of Republican governance — with Democractic help.

Hey, bicycles are making more sense that ever. IF there will be enough money to maintain the few roads with bike paths.

It also takes a long time to build the sort of civic trust necessary to raise taxes. Thats how you really tell a society is committed to something, if they are willing to raise taxes to support it. Sadly, it will be easier to raise taxes to expand roads and create more congestion than to actually tax it.

Congestion pricing died when people were ashamed to call it a tax. Of course it is a tax, taxes are necessary. Yeah, they are high in New York but guess what, there are three million jobs within a half hour subway ride from the stop on my corner, easily worth the 25 cents a day fare increase. Watch now, it will be easy to find a majority to spend taxes, it will be easy to find a majority to borrow more money, but it will be hard to find anyone who will commit to raising taxes. That is the litmus test.

Take Dinkins, he loved the cops enough to raise taxes to pay for them. Rudy took the credit for the extra cops and then screwed the PBA on their next agreement. They voted for him anyway.

Don’t believe me?

http://www.r8ny.com/node/14584

Something for nothing sells, as long as there is someone else to blame for the consequences.

In the EU a lot of countries have extremely low monthly rates for everyday commuters and higher rates for casual riders.

The better the carrots and sticks & convenience to encourage people (or their employers) to buy the unlimited pass the better in my book.

Under Federal law, you can allow your employees to set aside up to $110 per month/$1,320 per year of their salary before taxes (pretax) to pay for transit and eligible vanpooling expenses, and up to $215 per month/$2,580 per year for parking*. You can also offer this benefit as a tax-free fringe up to the same monthly limits. This is IRS-approved.

On Glenn’s buy-in-bulk tip, the Department of the Army used to buy me a metrocard every month through some esoteric government program used for people who worked on certain installations. If the federal government can do it, why can’t the state and local governments?

I think the MTA should also get a dedicated funding stream from parking taxes in the major NY/CT counties the MTA serves