Today’s Headlines

  • mike
  • Gargamel Tralfaz

    OK, if the State is not willing to vote for $350+ million, someone needs to “SHOW US THE $$$!”

    Come on Albany, hurry up and show us where it is going to come from.

  • Spud Spudly

    I was wondering about that story too Mike. Maybe today’s not the day to be criticizing MTA officials.

  • OK, if the State is not willing to vote for $350+ million, someone needs to “SHOW US THE $$$!

    I got your $350+ million right here:

    http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2008/04/shore-parkway-stealth-boondoggle.html

  • md

    The Daily News editorial says the plan might have passed if it came to a vote – the 42 Republicans may have been enough.

  • drose

    I would like every New York State legislator to have rubbed in their respective face the list of cities that will now get the UPA money from the US Dept of Transportation – Minneapolis, San Francisco, Chicago and Atlanta among others – and go back and tell their constituents that it’s alright, New York is a better place to live and work because we turned down this money.

    I hope Streetsblog does some work on the plans that will now get OUR money, and discuss the relative merits vs. what would have been done in New York. At least there are some forward-looking politicians somewhere in the country. Just not within our own state borders.

  • Spud Spudly

    So are all the cities who are now going to get “OUR” money implementing congestion pricing? (If they are, I haven’t heard about it.) Or is it just maybe possible that the Mayor’s proposal was a politically wounded duck from the start which was not the best strategy for securing that money?

  • drose

    Spud,

    Part of the requirement for getting any of this UPA money from the Feds was that congestion pricing in some way had to be part of the plan to restrict traffic.

    The only city whose plan I can recall is San Fran, which will implement pricing on the road leading to/from the Golden Gate bridge. So all those poor people in Marin County are going to have to pay to come into downtown SF.

  • Spud Spudly

    I didn’t know that, but it makes sense as a step toward the GOP’s goal to get the federal government out of the business of funding mass transit — instead of subsidizing it long-term just pass out the seed money set up the infrastructure so the localities can suck more cash out of their citizens.

  • Mark

    Shocking as this may seem, I don’t mind if the feds stop funding mass transit as long as they also stop funding highways. Drivers should pay for every inch of road they use, whether it’s a federal, state, or local road. Corzine in NJ is moving toward privatizing the roads and he’s not the only one. As car ownership becomes increasingly unaffordable — due to the now-happening peak in worldwide oil production — socializing the cost of roads and other car infrastructure will become increasingly popular. And more and more people will be demanding mass transit alternatives. Just wait till gas hits $10 a gallon. You’ll see.

  • Mark

    Oops, I meant to say socializing the cost of roads and other car infrastructure will become increasingly unpopular. Lotta typpos lately. I’m so hot and bothered these last few days…

  • “to get the federal government out of the business of funding mass transit — instead of subsidizing it long-term”

    They’re in that business like a a dope fiend is in the furniture sales business. I tried to find some figures; I’ve been curious for a while how much the MTA can count on yearly from the fed, but I couldn’t get anything but matching funds for 2d ave subway and discussion about congestion pricing (sigh). In general we lose the funding game, and always will thanks to Connecticut. I’m okay with having a bit more cash sucked out of me because I want better public spaces and infrastructure, but I’d rather have all of it spent on New York instead of 79 cents on the dollar.
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016.pdf

    The federal government is no refuge from the contradiction of opposition to both taxes and use fees while demanding better service all around.

  • Mark

    Spud – what’s so bad about localities “sucking cash out of citizens” to pay for roads & transit? Uhhh.. where do you think all our tax money comes from? Taxes are taxes are taxes. Less federal taxing means more local taxing or user fees. What’s the difference? I’d rather have local control over transportation revenue & spending decisions, anyway, rather than the feds’ hundreds of insidious strings.
    This all assumes that the feds stop funding highways too, of course, and lower the federal tax burden, and shrink the federal gov’t. I don’t think any of those are such bad ideas.