Ah, but if you have $75,000 in retirement income, you aren't paying an extra dime. In fact you aren't paying a dime period. And if you have $250,000 in retirement and investment income, you aren't paying an extra dime.

And "the MTA bill" bill to be funded isn't for 2009 to 2012. It is the interest on the unfunded bill from 1992 to 2008.

We aren't paying more for transit (or Social Security or schools or parks or libraries or health care). Don't let the psychological enginners convince you we are.

And now you're getting taxed .34% on your income which equals $255. And you're also chipping in another $50-100 on car rental fees. Throw in a few dozen cab rides that your significant other demands and you might be pushing $400 a year.

I'm with you Clarence.

I started with "somebody should do something" to preserve our public institutions. I moved onto "if no one else will do something I have to" which eventually led me to run against my Assemblymember as a minor party candidate in 2004.

To today -- they are going to keep draining these institutions until they collapse, so we'd better be prepared to live without them, and try to fight against paying something for nothing. For transportation, that's a bicycle.

In NYC drivers are wealthier than transit riders.

From the Campaign for NY's Future:
Workers earning less than $25,000 are TWICE as likely to take the subway as drive, and THREE TIMES as likely to take bus, subway or commuter rail than drive. Among commuters who earn between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, transit remains the preferred option to driving, by a 3-1 margin. Only among commuters earning more than $50,000 a year is driving more popular than the subway, though subway, bus and commuter rail use is greater than automobile use.

I'm not sure if I would, as Dave did, use the phrase "by definition," as the only thing car owners are by definition are car owners, but they definitely tend to be wealthier than transit takers.

The transfer tax revenues seen during the bubble won't be seen again for decades.

A reasonable estimate of revenue, long term, is $400 to $500 million per year. It was up to $1.6 billion at the peak, and (at the insistance of politicians demanding the release of "hidden billions") it was all blown.

And there may be very little in revenues until we get from the "Mexican Standoff" phase to massive distress sales.

Car owners by definition are rich and transit riders are poor.

Indeed. Is it a transportation system or is it a welfare system? Just charge what you need to charge to encourage reasonable transportation choices in the overall system, and if the result is inequity then implement rebates for those who are truly needy. There's no need for rich drivers or rich subway riders to get special treatment.

Rent your car in Jersey, you'll save a bundle. Fort Lee in particular has a lot of places at roughly 25% of Manhattan rental charges.

--Ian

Car owners by definition are rich and transit riders are poor.

Not so much in NYC, which explains the charges of "elitism" that are often leveled at Manhattanites who support congestion pricing. Therefore, I believe it is more constructive to phrase this argument in terms of supply and demand rather than making it an issue of "class". The simple truth is that driving and parking in the densest parts of NYC is priced too low.

I will also say that keeping service running was prioritized over tolls, but also over maintaining the fare low. At least for the next few years...

As we'd feared, they're one-shotting the perpetual revenue stream. This time it doesn't even pay for an entire capital plan -- just two years of one.

A few questions:

Are MTA bridge tolls increasing 10% upfront too? If so, will that not only further incentivize bridge shopping.

Is the 10% fare increase just getting rid of the "bonus" rides or actually increasing the fare? I hope it just gets rid of the bonuses rather than raising the base fare.

What about diverting city funds for the 7 line extension to other necessary projects?

If real estate bounces back, what's range of upside for revenue? If RE transactions start to pick up, can we avoid the stupid MTA "surplus" concept and simply pay down debt or put toward the capital plan.