http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/dont_forget_the_fastball.html

Yes, for two reasons:

First, the number of transit users is lower relative to the total population in further-out locations, but the subsidy per ride is higher. In the "play the game of chicken to the end" scenario with no one willing to pay, what would be left standing is the subway with some of its stations closed to cut costs. Which at this point is looking pretty good.

Second, Local Area Personal Income for 2007 was released yesterday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. And it showed (once again) that those working in Manhattan (who live in many places), if one excludes the Health Care and Social Assistance sector (which is substantially government-funded and tax exempt), accounted for over half of the private sector earnings in New York State. Not New York City. The whole state!

Add in the economic activity generated by consumer spending elsewhere by those who work in Manhattan but live elsewhere (like every dime I spend in Brooklyn), and firms located outside Manhattan who service it (like the delivery people who oppose tolls), and you have perhaps three quarters or more of New York State's private economy and tax base.

And why are businesses willing to locate there and pay all those sky-high taxes, rents and wages? Because of the transit system that allows two million talented people out of a metropolitan area of 18 million to come together in one small area. Without it, New York State is Michigan or worse.

Basically, at this point everyone in the suburbs, and exurbs, and even Upstate is living off Manhattan at least to an extent, once one thinks of not those who live in Manhattan but those who work there or are otherwise connected. And transit is what makes it what it is.

We may be about to find that out the hard way. Again.

Russ -- I could use your help. I want to understand why it evidently was easier for you to speculate about London vs. my NYC plan in a new comment, rather than take my suggestion in my comment #19 to download the BTA spreadsheet (via link in my comment #14 or my original post), go to the Cordon worksheet, and see for yourself: (i) how many portals into the CBD would need to be tolled (19), (ii) how I prorated the capital cost of the 19 from the original Bloomberg plan w/ 340 camera locations (it came to $10 million), (iii) how and why I quadrupled doubled that number (for conservatism, to $40 million), how I amortized it and then added per-transaction fees, yadda yadda yadda.

Folks -- I know I'm being peevish and that it's unattractive. But I've been tearing out what's left of my hair over the fact that the plans I've been putting out with Ted Kheel have been developed in exquisite detail ... yet they're sometimes treated little better than the arrant nonsense from the Fare Hike Four. As if we didn't allow for: the rebound in driving when traffic speeds increase; the increase in transit use when cordon fees are imposed; the costs to admin the toll system; etc.

So Russell -- Can you tell me what gives? Thanks.

The system proposed here is only charging you when crossing certain boundaries, which number, I'm guessing in the dozens.

The answer is No.

I'm surprised that wasn't clear from my post: "...One-way tolls of $1 or $2 or $3 or $4 or $5 to drive into the CBD (Manhattan south of 60th Street)..." [emphasis added]

Or, from the title page of the BTA spreadsheet: "The Central Business District (CBD): The 'cordon' area which motor vehicles will be charged a congestion fee to enter consists of all of Manhattan Island south of 60th Street. This 8.5-square mile zone, the commercial heart of New York City, is commonly known as the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD). For a further description, see the 'Cordon' worksheet tab."

In that worksheet tab ("Cordon"), I estimate that the annual amortization and operating costs of the tolling system will be $90 million a year. Yes, that's reflected in my estimate of $990 million net revenues from my plan.

The entire subway system brings 389,000 passengers into the CBD during the 8-9 a.m. peak hour on an average weekday (2007 data). An extra 1% -- which is merely hypothetical -- is thus only around 4,000 riders. With about 20 lines serving the CBD, the increase would average 200 per line per hour, or 14-15 per train, or 1-1.5 per car. If you want to double that for any particular line, feel free, the increase is still only 2-3 per car.

The dearth of informed, quantitative discussion on this subject (MTA bailout) is distressing. In a kind of Gresham's Law of Politics, it contributes to ill-considered ideas driving out serious ones.

It would be refreshing if more than just the odd policy wonk downloaded and looked at the Balanced Transportation Analyzer. The factoid of 389,000 peak hourly subway riders into the CBD is in the Subways worksheet, Cell D71. A list of subway lines into the CBD is in the O-Transit Capacity worksheet. There are 47 other worksheets covering autos, tolls, taxis, buses, etc. We're sitting on a gold mine of data (the BTA) and hardly anyone knows it.

Can the #6 train handle an extra 15,000 riders between 8 and 9am on a weekday?

The new Ravitch proposal to raise the off-street parking tax won't even net $100 million ... but will encourage parking cruising and thus more gridlock. In contrast, the $1-$2-$3-$4-$5 CBD toll, will net $700 million and improve CBD daytime travel speeds by 10%. (The taxi surcharge adds $290 million.)

For reducing driving and congestion, no credible plan compares with the one I'm offering here.

PS: Pegging the payroll tax to car commuting is an administrative nightmare as well as redundant once traffic pricing is in place.

Parking is much more accurate than tolls to limit the impact on lower income drivers. As such I would recommend a much higher tax on parking be included in the plan. Especially for cars dropping their cars before 9:30 a.m. ( commuters)

Further the license to operate a parking could be priced much higher than it is today.

As far as payroll tax, why not propose a very high tax on the salaries of employees who commute by car? This would give an incentive to companies to locate tehir operations close to a commuting hub and to incent their employees to use public transportation.

Let's not forget that our initial objective was to reduce driving and congestion. The MTA fundign was an afterthought.

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/

Rhywun again: While everyone's patting each other on the back for finally figuring out how to sock it to Manhattan residents (not all of whom are as rich as the popular imagination has it),: The 4-fold increase in Manhattan residents' share of the toll burden under my plan is due almost entirely to the taxi surcharge. Since taxi use is a classic luxury good (its income-elasticity is greater than one), the surcharge will be income-progressive. Thus, the vast majority of poor Manhattanites will be made better off by having taxi riders (plus bridge drivers) help rescue the MTA.

Larry Littlefield: I didn't follow your comment. Are you suggesting that suburban and exurban residents benefit as much as do NYC dwellers from a viable transit system?

Josh: This discussion shouldn't be about whose taxes are higher, suburbanites or City residents (if it were, I'd suggest you include property taxes!), but about crafting an equitable and thus more politically palatable funding structure for city and regional transit.

All: Please download (via the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (the "BTA" I referred to above) spreadsheet that includes all the assumptions, algorithms, results, etc. You can craft your own transit-traffic-pricing-rescue plan!

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/CC-discount-residents-leaflet.pdf

http://www.mta.info/bandt/html/dscintro.htm

Why is this not part of the discussion yet?

(You can tell it's tax season because I chose that particular soapbox.)

Once the issue of tolling all the bridges is overcome with a toll similar to the subway/bus fare, the we can start to play with real-time variable pricing. But these pie charts ain't gonna convince them.

The Fare Hike Four are standing on principle of tolling bridges, not negotiating for slightly lower burden for their residents. Those in favor of bridge tolls should sidestep them and make them irrelevant. Maybe next time they'll come back to the table.