Let's call it real, urban renewal.

In effect, out of town and out of state drivers would carry a big chunk of the load-- but the dependence on political whim would be derailed.

The general concept is valid and I am glad they have put it on the table.

Remember, buses are not potential lounges like posters claim subway stations to be. Everyone must get off the bus at the end of the route, and not many people want to hang around on buses until they end up on the far edge of neighborhoods, nor do they want to get on and get off continuously. Moreover, as Charles indicates several times in the report, fare collection and congestion are the biggest impediments to bus travel times.

My talk at the AFNY meeting this Tues. eve (see Calendar, Jan. 29) will be a great time for talking through these issues. We're going to have the BTA model on a projection screen, so we can tackle quantitative issues. (Example, re Comment #13: a $1.00/gallon gas tax or "market" price hike reduces vehicle entries into the CBD by just 3%, indicating that the revenues in the Kheel Plan are relatively immune to oil "issues." I'll derive this result on Tues -- takes about 20 seconds.)

As to the myth that one cannot make money running a system--look at Hong Kong. I think they at least come close to breakeven on fair revenue and make a huge bundle as a real estate developer, which is the most logical way to fund the building of new lines.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/the-loopy-logic.html?

Secondly, free subway? Thanks, but no thanks. The fare is a, yes revenue for the MTA, but it's an implict form of security, it represents that the subway is primarily for travel and not for people out of the street to treat it like a shopping mall or something. And I agree with the latest blogger, the MTA shouldnt be responsible for it's own construction costs but the cost estimates rise and the MTA has to dish from its own pocket. The City's CP plan will generate revenue and aid the MTA is doing it's projects or other mass trans. improvements, like maybe adding light rails. I think that's it for now.

I think transit shouldn't be expected to pay for its own construction costs, but it certainly can cover operating costs, assuming that it is run efficiently, and that it doesn't have unfair competition from free roads built for cars.

real estate developpers taxes shoudl be paying for transpoartion investments. without insane real estate prices , people could live close to where they work

Well, here it goes. The transit system built under the dual contracts was primarily financed by the city, which paid for the infrastructure, just as it pays for the roads. There was an expectation that after making a "guaranteed profit" the transit companies would be able to pay the city's infrastructure bonds, but that never really happened.

The transit companies paid for the equipment (subway cars) and operations. The deal might have worked, expect the fare was frozen at five cents, which was devalued by WWI-era inflation. The transit companies stopped funding their share of the capital cost (ie. upgrading and replacing the subway cars) and eventually went bankrupt, leaving a degraded. Then the fare was raised.

That's been the cycle.

What I see is a constant clamour to get more out, and put less in, to the common pie. To make someone else pay. And the argument is always the same -- we are the deserving people, others are the undeserving people. That is not an argument I want made on my behalf.

If the subway were free, then the subway riders would be on "welfare." Scream all you want, but that is what people who do not use the subway would believe. And then questions would begin "why do you need this, why do you need that?" After all, we're paying for our transportation and you aren't paying for yours. Beggers can't be choosers. And would continue -- right to the 1970s.

Instead of having the MTA decide how important mass transit is, or transit riders decide how important mass transit is, you'd have people in Upstate New York deciding how important mass transit is. And their view would be "what about my needs"?

I would much rather say that the subway covers itself on an auto-equivalent basis (I've defined this elsewhere so I won't bore you) and that the remaining transfers from motor vehicles and the general till are a fair "rent" payment to transit riders for giving up their share of scarce space on the street.

Larry, you are dead wrong. The farebox revenue as importance of transit argument is the most ridiculous ideas of transportation planning. To make things perfectly clear, no transit works on farebox revenue. Zilch. No system even comes close. It's impossible. Heck, airlines can't do this. No city runs transit for profit or even to break even, and no citizen believes that. Transit is and always has been a way to develop dense cities, making cities operate efficiently. Essentially, the city profits because transit makes the city sellable to business, ripe for development.

As you know, private transit of yore was funded by real estate developers. They used the transit to reach undevelopped swaths of land and sell those lots. But that transit, even with a captive customer base, never turned a "profit."

Of course, this overlooks the biggest, most glaring problem with all this: the transit system becoming dependent on car drivers going to Manhattan, which can lead to some unwanted consequences down the line, especially if other factors, like rising oil prices or gas taxes cause driving to become less attractive.