Comments on: Beyond Ravitch: Still Time for a Bolder Plan

By: Russell Bartels

Russell Bartels — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:26:02 +0000

The household density of the NYC far outer borough areas will not change much in the lifetime of our readers. So, driving to the CBD, but mainly to other metro destinations, will continue to be a rational choice. A recent NYU study shows over fifty percent of the trips are by car in several NYC outer borough districts. Since subway and rail stations are sparse, the use of more buses for these less dense areas is proposed, although this will be expensive if the routes and frequencies are increased significantly. Now, the fare covers, on average, about one-fourth of the bus operating cost city-wide. Thus, in the outer boroughs, the fare is covering very little of the operating cost. Consequently, we might want to consider options that involve changing the status quo. But consideration of options will take a little imagination. I invite a discussion of how we might change the vehicle technology, ownership/rental, time/place/distance monitoring, and many more ideas.

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:06:21 +0000

No, Russell, park-and-rides are not the answer. They generate sprawl. At best, they're acceptable as a temporary stopgap - but only if they're explicitly temporary, with specific sunset measures in place to remove them after a transition period. As you say, there's another solution: increase transit service in those areas.

By: Russell Bartels

Russell Bartels — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:14:22 +0000

The plan is said to have a benefit of: ……. sheer efficiency …. in addition to: revenue generation, tolling equality. Buses in the outer parts of the boroughs are inefficient in terms of revenue and pollution per passenger as well as being grossly inconvenient. The MTA/CITY undoubtedly makes money on the high density routes and loses money on the low density routes. (But there is no published data that I can find.) The household density in these outer borough areas is between Manhattan and the suburbs, but without either ubiquitous transit stops or park and ride facilities. From these locations, driving the short distance to Manhattan, and other areas in the City, is a rational choice, overwhelmingly so if you have a free parking placard or corporate reimbursement for parking. The only win-win solution for these areas is a radically new park and ride concept.

By: Dylan MacDonald

Dylan MacDonald — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:33:07 +0000

Hey Charlie, it’s Dylan MacDonald. Glad to see you’re still fighting the good fight. Not suprisingly your and Ted Kheel’s plan makes the most sense. It’s incredible to me how cars still hold sway in NYC which probably has the lowest per capita car ownership in the US. So sad.

By: Charles Komanoff

Charles Komanoff — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:24:13 +0000

fdr’s point (#20) is well taken, and is precisely why the Kheel-Komanoff plan insists on free buses: this step can be taken the same day (or the day prior, preferably) that the tolls start up and thus provide an immediate, concrete, unassailable benefit from the toll revenue. “Losers cry louder than winners sing” is fdr’s point, and it’s all too true; but there will be so many free-bus beneficiaries that if each one sings only a fifth as loud as each toll-paying driver cries, the winners can carry the day.

By: fdr

fdr — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:23:14 +0000

The definition of a voting bloc is people who vote the same way because they feel strongly about a particular issue. Outer borough politicians figure that drivers who are angry about paying tolls will vote as a bloc against the incumbents who voted for tolls, while non-drivers will not be as aroused by the issue and won’t be motivated to vote as a bloc for the incumbents. Especially if they don’t see any great improvement in mass transit that the incumbents can take credit for.

By: Urbanis

Urbanis — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:23:49 +0000

Yes, non-drivers would be a powerful voting block… IF we could actually vote for city- or state-level politicians who had our interests at heart. But short of running for office ourselves, we are forced to choose between politicians who are uniformly car-centric, even when their agendas may differ in other areas. In my district, for example, Adriano Espaillat has been continually holding rallies against against tolling the bridges–and he was the “progressive” politician.

By: J. Mork

J. Mork — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:48:40 +0000

Right– but since most nyc households don’t have a car, doesn’t that make non-drivers a powerful voting bloc?

By: fdr

fdr — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:57:14 +0000

Apples and oranges it may be, Charles, but in a political campaign it will be the headline on a challenger’s literature: “Assemblyman X wanted to make you pay a $10 bridge toll”. Assemblyman X will try to explain, “Yes, but it’s really only about $6 while Ravitch was really $10, and this would raise a lot more money for the MTA.” Most voters will just read the headline. All I’m saying is that this is the way most politicians think about these issues: how it’s going to play in the next election.

By: Charles Komanoff

Charles Komanoff — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:28:31 +0000

Several commenters compared Kheel-Komanoff $10 tolls to Silver's $2 toll or Ravitch's $5. Those comparisons are apples-oranges twice over. First, Ravitch and Silver charge both ways, while K-K charges inbound only. Second, $10 is the peak toll in K-K; the average is a shade over $6. So the correct comparison is Ravitch's $10 and Silver's $4 to Kheel-Komanoff's $6. (How, then, do we raise 2-4 times Ravitch's or Silver's revenue? Simple: we toll every portal, not just some; we eliminate "offsets" of existing tolls; we surcharge taxis; and of course we don't exempt NYC residents.) Speaking of the taxi surcharge: I'm glad someone noticed that it's a key part of the Kheel-Komanoff plan. Taxis, like private autos and trucks, should be charged for their causation of congestion. The surcharge also helps balance the toll plan geographically and income-wise. I encourage folks to focus on the revenue from the plan: $1.7 billion a year. If you have different ideas than our fare reductions for using the revenues, try them out. Download the Balanced Transportation Analyzer spreadsheet, input your fares (and congestion tolls) and see how your revenue and traffic results compare with ours.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:42:19 +0000

Holy shit those will be expensive cab rides. That is a pretty strong disincentive on what is essential quasi-public transportation.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:30:36 +0000

Someone a while ago wrote–I think Cap’n Transit–about a problem with free buses and demand which I kind of bought into. Maybe free buses will be good someday but I would prefer the MTA store up some of the money from a plan like this to pay off debt and invest in new, important capital projects which will make service better in the future. I have no problem subsidizing fares of low income workers but I think for the marginal cost most high/middle income people pay for the subway/bus as it is, that most everyone would do better making service better, upgrading stations to show when the train is coming, etc.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:50:14 +0000

“Obviously most of the outer borough pols are afraid they will be blamed for the tolls more than they will be applauded for saving the fare.”

All the more reason to prefer a short term doomsday people can hate them for to a long-run deterioration they can blame on someone else.

By: fdr

fdr — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:43:14 +0000

J. Mork: I assume saving the transit system in exchange for a $10 toll won’t work any better than saving the transit system for a $2 toll is working now. Obviously most of the outer borough pols are afraid they will be blamed for the tolls more than they will be applauded for saving the fare.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:35:21 +0000

The plan admits a $1.2 billion hole, not including capital needs.

And if the NYC buses were free, the MTA would have to make the suburban buses free as well — while increasing service since farebox recapture would no longer be a factor in determining service levels.

Why not just increase subway fares to a level sufficient to fully cover operating costs? With all the discounts, the subway fare would still be a bargain.

And then all the buses could be made free, with the level of service cut to the level of subsidy available. No one would have a right to complain. And more rapid boarding might offset a smaller number of buses and drivers, since one could make more runs.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:17:46 +0000

OK, here’s what I sent to my state legislators:

[Their first names], I strongly want the transit system to be fully funded. While the Ravitch plan has some good elements, I think fully funding the transit system will require some stronger medicine in the long run. I urge you to look at this…

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/03/10/beyond-ravitch-still-time-for-a-bolder-plan/

Thanks,
Mark Fleischmann
[My address]

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:10:16 +0000

Peter, send a link to this Streetsblog story to your state senator and state assemblyman and tell them this is what you want. Having said this, I will now do it.

By: Peter Flint

Peter Flint — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:59:09 +0000

So how does the average Streetsblog reader with no particular connections help get this on the table? Tell us what to do!

By: J. Mork

J. Mork — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:35 +0000

How does “The incumbent made buses free and made off-peak subway rides cheaper and averted a transit crisis” not totally trump your scenario, fdr?

By: fdr

fdr — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:39:15 +0000

The politicians will picture their opponents in the next election saying “The incumbent supported ten dollar tolls!” and that will be the end of it.