What concerns me is that in this post at a critical time when advocates are still trying to get people to call Albany (the Post is sending buses), you went pretty negative on the Ravitch plan in similar ways as the Fare Hike Four.

So here I am saying that stinks, I disagree and I think your plan has a snowball’s chance politically.

You can say whatever you want, but I think that second half of the post just muddied the waters to not real end.

In one sense, then, I’m surprised you hadn’t heard about the Kheel-Komanoff plan. OTOH, K-K got frozen out of the discussion from early December on. Partly that’s because it took months of immense, intense work to put the K-K plan together (If you download the spreadsheet you’ll get a sense of the enormity of the analysis underlying the plan), and we weren’t able to get the plan out in time to head off and possibly influence Ravitch.

But the bigger reason is that the advocacy community cleaved to Ravitch from the get-go and, despite showering K-K with private praise, excluded it from their politicking.

I understood that, though I didn’t love it. Now, after four months of largely fallin in line, I feel I’ve fulfilled my obligations to the community and ought to be allowed to speak out about a plan (K-K) that appears to be vastly superior to Ravitch — not just theoretically but politically as well (that was the point of my Newsday piece).

Please feel free to critique the K-K plan. But please refrain from questioning my right to talk about it. I’ve paid my dues.

Tolls on now free bridges, regional payroll tax to pay for the lifeblood of our regional economy are pretty exciting to me. Count me as an oddball in the advocacy community.

What’s your thrilling and exciting alternative and how many votes does that have? The Kheel Plan? How many co-sponsors does that have? Would Paterson even sign it?

So yes, I question your judgment too.

Knocking the Ravitch plan now, which is only a few State Senators from becoming reality without having a politically viable alternative seems to me as reckless the Fare Hike Four’s “alternative”.

But sure, go ahead and excite me with your alternative. I don’t see it here.

You’re making similar (important) points so I’ll address you together.

Of course Manhattan residents float the City and State budgets far more, per capita, than others. I made that very point — rather elegantly, I’d say — in a 2003 report trumpeting the equity of East River bridge tolls (click here). It had no political impact whatsoever.

Why? Because politics, as Machiavelli pointed out half-a-millennium ago, revolves around challenging (or defending) the status quo. It is the world as it is that people are accustomed to, and which we must address.

Glenn, as for my “giving fodder to the anti-toll folks by saying that Manhattanites would have the biggest drop in traffic and not pay the tolls”: I take it you don’t dispute my facts, you just question my judgment? I’ve simply stated what everyone already knew, or suspected.

I don’t mind this back-and-forth, but I think we would do better to consider the challenge Aaron (Naparstek) laid down in his post today. Glenn, I think your question there (Why is everyone knocking the Ravitch Plan today?) has an obvious answer: it excited no one.

As they should, because they contribute far less of it. And boy do they pay for that privilege–ask their landlords.

I agree.

Except that the Port Authority has kept tolls below TBTA levels during recessions by sucking funds out of NYC airports, which is why the airport access program was cut back to the Airtrain from JFK to Jamaica. So NJ residents are paying, but not their full share.

The folly of your analysis goes right back to the “One City, One Fare” policy. You (and the Fare Hike Four) took that as a pure gift and put it right into your pocket (SI got a free ferry too) and promptly set the new baseline for all future calculations of who’s benefiting more than others. Where was the shared sacrifice then? Oh, gifts from heaven are fine, but when the check comes later, we have to split it…not very neighborly.

Sorry Charles, that pig just won’t fly with me. The drivers in Manhattan are not from Manhattan, but they live with all the disgusting problems they create. And the drivers coming over the bridges for free are much higher income than mass transit riders – Manhattan riders might be now paying more in the fare than the cost of their trips – how’s that for equity?

I think Bloomberg should now go full throttle on taking as much street space away from motorists.

Mark — You’ll be interested to know that the BTA model indicates that the fare hikes and service cuts each contribute roughly 50-50 to the overall negative results.

The approaches to the free bridges along the Harlem and East River would have garnered the most benefit.

And if you want to get into an interborough dispute over who’s subsidizing who, let’s run an analysis of what a fair fare would really be for someone traveling 12 miles from Queens using a bus and a train, versus someone in Manhattan taking a crosstown bus 1 mile or two express stops on the train. Charging the real cost based on distance or number of modes (as is done in many other cities) would catch some folks attention in the outerboroughs.

The current “One System, One Fare” is great (I hope we can afford to keep it), but let’s be fair if we start casting stones on who is getting benefits from the current system.