Today’s Headlines

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Larry Littlefield

    The police academy had been planned for decades, with construction starts scheduled off and on, for a site in the South Bronx that future officers recruited from the city could have taken transit to get to.

    Now, the only future officer will be those who drive there.

    If it wasn’t neccessary to compromise between Long Island and the Hudson Valley, the city’s police academy would have been located in the suburbs. As it is, just how long would it take for the average city resident to get to College Point, vs. the average suburbanite with a car? Compared with the current location?

    Moreover, I can tell you that for an 18 year-old girl with a good school record, driving an old car with no collision just liability, it costs a minimum of $1,800 per year to add them to their parent’s insurance in Brooklyn. How much for a young man? Add that to the application fee to become a police officer is you are from NYC vs. the suburbs.

  • Brad — Shouldn’t your “one in three luminaries” who “see road pricing as key to MTA rescue” be two in three?

    Both Prof. Freeman

    The federal, state and local governments must work together to shift subsidies away from road travel and other high energy transportation systems to more efficient ones, like trains, buses and subways

    and RPA’s Neysa Pranger

    [T]he state and city must not give up on finding a long term source of revenue to finance transit expansion and operating needs. At the climate change talks in Copenhagen, Mayor Bloomberg floated the notion [of] reviving variable tolling on the city’s bridges. While this idea has encountered many obstacles in the recent past, tolling is being embraced around the globe as a sensible user fee system.

    seem pretty clear on that score.

  • Josh

    Well of course the NYT article is UES-centric. Is that really surprising?

  • Nicole Gelinas

    As the third luminary, I think that congestion pricing would have made much more sense than the $1.5 billion payroll tax did, and I favored it as economically sensible — scarce resources, etc. — when the mayor suggested it ( http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=3940 ).

    However: the MTA is not suffering now because of a lack of congestion pricing or other revenue sources. The MTA got $2.1 billion worth of annual new revenue this year, just through different sources.

    The MTA is suffering because its costs are going up — see new labor award — and because Albany has chosen to starve it of pre-existing subsidies and tax revenues.

    Why does Albany do that? Because it fails to deal with its own rising costs.

    What makes people think that Albany won’t steal the MTA’s congestion-pricing revenues, too?

    This is not a revenue problem.

    If the mayor and Albany want congestion pricing, great. But they’ve got to roll back the MTA’s new payroll tax first, by the amount of money that congestion pricing would bring in, and they’ve got to start getting the MTA’s costs under control.

    The deal was one bailout, not two.

    Here’s some more supplementary data to my Times contribution:

    http://www.nyfiscalwatch.com/?p=2274

  • Larry Littlefield

    “The MTA is suffering because its costs are going up.”

    Well, the labor costs are going up. But mostly, the MTA is suffering because it will be paying for PAST costs in the future.

    Chapter 9 bankruptcy. And not just at the MTA. Younger generations should not have to pay for things that older generations received but did not pay for, and that they will not be getting themselves.

  • sheldon silver needs a pie in the face.