It’s only purpose as far as I can see is to merge the city’s buses, which cover a higher share of their costs, with suburban buses, which cover a lower share, allowing a cross-subsidy from the former to the latter.

But you pay a price. Where will the top leadership of the regional bus authority have their offices? And what is the likelihood of them actually showing up a bus depot or on a route, given that their responsibility could extend from Dutchess County to the Hamptons? That doesn’t speak well for the possiblity of hands-on management.

=Uh-Oh. If the MTA can barely maintain their own infrastructure, how are they going to maintain bridges?

Thanks for clearing up that original misconception. While $2 each way isn’t $5, and thus there will still be toll shopping that will hurt the downtown/midtown bridges, hopefully the marginal driver will now be encouraged to take the subway/bus instead since the price is no different.

On another note, read the Governor’s MTA bill on the Senate website this morning, and there are a few items of note that could merit a separate news item should the “MTA Audit” log-jam free up potential passage of the bill later this week. First, I-95/Trans-Manhattan Expressway drivers will not get tolled so long as they stay on the road and go through Manhattan into New Jersey. It would seem difficult to plug all of the holes on 95 through Manhattan, though, so there may be drivers who get off 95 onto the Henry Hudson/West Side Highway or local streets in order to avoid a $2 toll. Could create an even more monumental Cross-Bronx X-Way morning commute log-jam.

Also, Governor’s bill proposes severing NYC Transit buses away from the subways to form the Regional Bus Authority. Not sure of the positives or negatives of that, but I imagine the more enlightened readers of this blog will be able to parse that out.

Lower Manhattan activists have been pushing for reversal of the Verrazano Tolls for years, back to its original configuration conforming with all the other toll directions.

Shouldn’t others be agitating for that en masse as well?

I buttonholed Schumer last week, and put his feet to the fire. (He had promised us during his 1998 campaign that he would work to reverse the Verrazano tolls, but reversed his position as soon as he got elected!). Anyway, Schumer didn’t give me a straight response – no surprise.

However, many other electeds are on our side on this, but Staten Island has more votes.

The MTA loses at least $50 million a year on tolls beaters who come through lower Manhattan – and that is a 1990 estimate. Figure close to $100 million today.

Why are so few people ignoring this simple revenue potential and traffic-congestion mitigation solution?

Also, the truck flow issue is not just because of the commercial restrictions at the Holland Tunnel, which really only date from 9-11, but because the PA tolls are also one-way in-bound, so there is an incentive for trucks that are east of Manhattan to go straight across town and take the free exit from the city, vs. paying the double-toll at the S.I.-bound Verrazano. I doubt if low tolls on the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges will bring much relief in this regard, but it would be a start.

What are your suggestions for amending the legislation to ensure the upkeep of the ped/bike paths on the East River bridges?

Does anyone yet know if the $2 toll would be paid both ways – similar to a subway trip – or only in one direction? I did see one news report that said it would be paid in both directions, but it seems every other news outlet is making the assumption that the toll is only being paid inbound.

If it really is both ways, and it passes that way, then Shelly Silver is a fucking genius and I take back everything I’ve said about him.

If the toll is only one way, then the Triborough (sorry, RFK) Bridge, and Queens-Midtown and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnels will continue to be ghost towns in the afternoon, and drivers will, as now flood all of the other crossings. In addition, as noted elsewhere, there will continue to be toll shopping across the East River bridges in the morning, reducing much of the traffic benefit that the Ravitch plan would have given the neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens that house the Long Island anchorage of the four currently free bridges.

Hence, I would question some of the traffic improvements alluded to above if these are only one-way tolls in the morning. They need to be put in for both directions.

Debt service on money borrowed by NYC to rebuild these bridges transferred to the MTA, or will the city pay the debts while the toll money goes to the suburbs? If the debts don’t move as well, NYC is screwed just as it was with the TBTA. If the debts move, then it’s OK.

And speaking of the TBTA, what share of the surplus toll revenue would go to city transit? Any? With no assurance, it may be assumed that the city’s share would fall as it did with the TBTA, from 67% when the MTA was formed in 1968 to typically less than
50% in many years today.

Any assurance that once the city no longer owns the bridge the state legislature won’t ban bicycles on the grounds that suburban residents can’t pedal that far, so city access is “unfair?” Once the bridges are in the MTA’s hands, you can forget about expanding bicycle and pedestrian access on the bridges.

Rather than a sale, I’d prefer a lease, with the lease payments equal to the debt service, and the city retaining say over types of access.