Speaking as one who has worked in capital budgeting for an MTA agency, the "mega-projects" are really nickels and dimes, because they are one-time expenses and the 2nd Avenue south of 63rd isn't happening.

Switches and signals have been replaced on a 60-year cycle, except for the 1970s fiscal crisis. As a result of those missed years, the whole IND is overdue and vulnerable to collapse. Meanwhile, since the early 1990s ongoing expenses have been funded with borrowed money. Now the choice is to pay vastly more to keep replacing systems on a 50 or 60 year cycle PLUS THE INTEREST ON $23 BILLION IN DEBT or let the system collapse.

That's what the bastard protecting us from fare increases and "congestion taxes" have done to us. Oh, and their pensions will be exempt from state and local income taxes, and well pay taxes to fund them even as public services collapse.

First we need to identify how much are the annual expenditures in Manhattan for traffic enforcement, and rebuiding and maintaining all manhattan bound vehicular bridges and tunnels (this should include NY, state , MTA and NJ facilities).

Then we need to figure how to make the users of these facilites pay for it.

We should sell the Brooklyn bridge and Manhattan's all other automotive accesses and let a company figure out to break even.

Christine, I agree with you that if the bridges are used by less than 5% of the population we shouldn't be paying for it out of general taxes.

However, I don't think we should sell anything. Those bridges are way too valuable. If the Assembly won't pay to charge people for the bridges, I say we implement Larry's idea of turning over more and more the bridges and their approach roads to transit, pedestrian, emergency and cycling infrastructure until the congestion is pushed out to Weprin's neighborhood. Then we'll have a functioning city and they can stay stuck in traffic.

I think it is imperative to create a mechanism by which revenues from congestion pricing (in whatever form it may eventually take) are dedicated to transit improvements. Without such a mechanism, many will be rightfully skeptical that those revenues will ever reach transit end users (myself included.)

The MTA's focus on mega-projects like the west side extension of the #7, or the 2nd ave subway, or the east side access project are wholly misguided. Capital improvements that will improve service on existing lines would do far more to improve the subways. Antiquated switching and electrical systems need to be upraded, rolling stock needs to be upgraded, and more stock should be put on the lines. Increasing the frequency and extent of bus service is another critical project that should take precedence over building new lines.

Reminds me of Wall Street in the 80"s when traders were given cocaine as bonus..

This is where the discourse of transporation interacts with the discourse of affordable housing : the city prefers to give illegal parking spots to city employees rather than reserving real estate to build affordable housing for the middle class in Manhattan.

The city imposes the building of parking to developers but does not impose the building of affordable housing.

The sad truth is cars are more valuable than people in our society. All government employees working in Manhattan should get an affordable appartement in Manhattan: Firefighters, police , teachers, hospital .

(Therefore, a prerequisite of congestion pricing is the elimination of illegal parking permit abuse.)

You are speaking as people who don't matter about the privileges of those who do. The keeper of those privileges is the New York State Legislature.

And when you show up to vote in November 2008, there will probably be only one name on the ballot, or one name that is more than just a name the minority party decided to fill in.

So they can do whatever they want, until people are willing to make the ENORMOUS effort required to at least make them nervous about how they treat everyone else. And they will keep on doing what they have been doing, because it benefits those who matter -- those cashing in and moving out.

On the main failures of congestion pricing is that it did not take into account the pre-existing condition of parking permit abuse. At best, Congestion Pricing mentions it, acknowledges it - and then forgets it, without any specific mitigation of the problem. Reduction of parking permit distribution by a couple thousand permits, as the Mayor reports, means nothing when there is no real increased enforcement of parking permit regulations, a conspicous omission of congestionn taxing. PlaNYC says government sector vehicles will not be exempt from congestion pricing, but this statement has no credibility whatsoever, because the government sector has been de facto "exempt" from parking permit abuse, and has committed millions of parking violations for years. Therefore, a prerequisite of congestion pricing is the elimination of illegal parking permit abuse. Congestion pricing fails miserably because it has not addressed this issue in any real sense.

As Sam Schwartz has stated publicly, the Mayor and DOT have to "clean house" first and eliminate parking permit abuse permanently before any thought of congestion taxing.

For all of you non-believers, paper No Permit Parking signs have reduced parking permit abuse on a daily basis in Chinatown by 75-90% in the last six months. These signs need to be posted on a permanent basis. Permanent No Permit Parking signs would be a "highly visible" deterrent and a specific aid toward enforcement of millions of posted sign violations.

Permanent No Permit Parking signs would effect 150,000 permit holders in NYC and would reduce, by many thousands daily, the amount of government sector commuters travelling into Manhattan and using permits illegally. Permanent No Permit Parking signs would also regain $46-million/year for NYC which is lost due to illegal parking on parking meters by the government sector. Due to the Mayor's negligence regarding permit abuse, before trying to introduce congestion taxing, NYC has lost $300-million in parking meter revenue in the last 6-7 years.

The state and the city should pay ONLY for MASS transit and PUBLIC facilities with PUBLIC money (our taxes).
Public money paying for facilities serving 5% of the population can be characterized as improper use of government funds.

First we need to identify how much are the annual expenditures in Manhattan for traffic enforcement, and rebuiding and maintaining all manhattan bound vehicular bridges and tunnels (this should include NY, state , MTA and NJ facilities).

Then we need to figure how to make the users of these facilites pay for it.

We should sell the Brooklyn bridge and Manhattan's all other automotive accesses and let a company figure out to break even. They can sell shares to the users or collect fees. This sale will finance the MTA hole, provide immediate upfront funding to accelerate transit investments and let market forces establish the value of the crossings.

Let's get to work.

A comment on the spending math here: Assuming $500 million in annual net pricing revenue.
The article proposes annual spending from CP:
$150 for pedestrian and neighborhood greening
$120* for BRT and bus improvements
$230 million for MTA capital projects

*Since the demise of the SMART fund, it's hard to know what, if any, congestion pricing funds would go to bus and BRT improvements. The mayor's priority is clearly building the 7 Train, followed by the MTA capital plan, 2nd Ave and LIRR connector. For the sake of this article, I estimated that the equivalent of $60 million in annual pricing revenue is intended for buses --- at the high end of the PlaNYC amount. The thing to consider is that PlaNYC (via SMART) proposed spending $50billion on transportation with $31b coming from SMART. But since SMART assumed annual, bondable, funding from the city and state, and since SMART isn't happening, the number of projects which can be funded is much smaller. Pricing revenue of $500million would generate $6 to $7billion.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/report_transportation.pdf

Many regional centers in the outer boroughs are centers of public employment, because the city's policy was to shift public employment there to help them grow. And public employees drive.

Also, aside from buses, which are slow, mass transit is laid out like spokes in a wheel, with Manhattan at the center. Areas on the periphery only have good mass transit access to their particular spoke. Others drive. Although with most arterials heading to Manhattan, crosstown driving isn't easy either.

Using CP revenues to provide New York tax payers with $30 tax rebates might be seen as a nice symbolic gesture in some quarters but would likely be ridiculed by every editorial board in the city except perhaps the Post. Thank you billionaire mayor for giving me back $30.

Swobo: I think pricing is clearly in trouble from a public relations perspective though, you're right, on the policy-making side nothing has really changed since the formation of the Commission.

Including discounts, fares are lower than 12 years ago, and have plunged relative to inflation. Geez, everyone wants something for nothing, whether they take the subway or drive.

In a way I can't blame people, because in NY taxes and tolls are already high, and the money goes to pensions and debts from the past rather than services today. It seems like a ripoff because it is, because insiders and those who came before grabbed so much. So most people, and certainly most younger people, are ripped off.

So Mr. Fidler, if there is no congesion pricing, I don't want higher taxes on labor. Tax retirement income (currently tax exempt in NY), and make those former public employees who grabbed richer pay and benefits for themselves while cutting both for future public employees pay for retiree health care. And impose a massive exit tax on real estate transactions, so people can't leave the state without paying off a chunk of the debts they planned to stick us with first.