Comments on: Today’s Headlines

By: Chris H

Chris H — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:48:15 +0000

I meant I won’t disagree with you.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:48:14 +0000

(As far as the policies that led up to this point, on the other hand, you will get no argument from me.)

Pardon me if I am a little crazed, but the policies that have led up to this point have got me a little crazed. It’s like the drip, drip, drip of water torture. Or being tied to railroad tracks and seeing the train in the distance.

We’re screwed, but it’s true we need to be adults about it. But I certainly don’t like to hear “why should I have to pay” rhetoric from either drivers OR transit riders, given where than has led us. Or to see elected officials receive anything other than contempt for further appeals to something for nothing.

By: Chris H

Chris H — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:27:50 +0000

But as I’ve pointed out before, they are not giving up future revenue. You are assuming that the tolls would have been raise at the same rates without this plan. Considering the history of politicization of the tolls by Trenton, I can almost assure you that they would not. The “profit” (which it is projected to have) of the PBC must be reinvested into transportation projects.

You should really read the overview that I linked to, especially pages 18-19.

As far as the policies that led up to this point, on the other hand, you will get no argument from me.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:07:39 +0000

(I don’t really understand your arugument here. Considering that the state is projected to have a $2 billion shortfall, this would mean fewer cut programs thus benefiting the people of New Jersey.)

Cetainly the State of New Jersey can choose higher tolls as an alternative to higher taxes or drastic service cuts.

But the more important point is that it faces a choice between the three because it has run up debts and failed to contribute to its public employee pension funds for years. And it has done so because of an “I want for me now” and “I don’t want to pay” mentality. The result is disaster.

Would drastically higher tolls be less of a disaster than the alternatives? Maybe.

But the bottom line is they are giving up future revenues to get out of the hole today. Those who made the decisions that led to this situation should never be allowed to forget that.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:59:10 +0000

Larry, I don't really understand your arugument here. If you actually look at the plan, the PBC will start making concession payments into the TTF starting in 2014. Additionally, up to $960 million will be freed up from the general budget through the removal of debt service. Considering that the state is projected to have a $2 billion shortfall, this would mean fewer cut programs thus benefiting the people of New Jersey.

By: Brad Aaron

Brad Aaron — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:36:26 +0000

Dave,

I was struck by this passage:

Drew mentioned his concern about the proposal saying, “What I think this is really about is money and not about congestion.”

“I think the proposal by the Department of Transportation is deeply rooted as a funding source – the tail wagging the dog,” said Drew.

But I see your point, and altered the hed.

By: Dave H.

Dave H. — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:22:47 +0000

But good work digging up the Fairfield Minuteman. Streetsblog has its eyes and ears everywhere.

By: Dave H.

Dave H. — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:18:55 +0000

Those CT lawmakers were hardly “decrying” congestion pricing. They expressed “guarded support.” I think the headline needs to be changed.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:18 +0000

So what will New Jerseyans and others get for all those additional toll payments? Nothing, because other New Jerseyans have already gotten it — lower taxes (no tax on clothing, low gas taxes) and funding for what they want.

Those who provided that wonderful deal were heroes, weren’t they?

As has happened in New York, and at the national level.