Today’s Headlines

  • Cap’n Transit

    “Congestion pricing has to be about congestion,” the chairman of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, John Liu, said. “That’s why it’s called congestion pricing, not pollution pricing.”

    “The idea of fees around $50, your jaw drops,” Mr. Liu said. “The opponents of congestion pricing are having a field day with this. It is red meat for them to sink their teeth into.”

    In city government we have a few precious visionaries, capable of an incredible depth of thinking and insight, who can see beyond the mess to a better future, and who are helping chart a course to that future. And then we have John Liu.

  • Sorry, I meant to add some more context:

  • Larry Littlefield

    All that is being promised, and the idea that CP and other revenues will not be required, is just dishonest crap.

    “Rates on $100 million of bonds sold by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, with bidding run by Goldman, soared to 20 percent yesterday from 4.3 percent a week ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Presbyterian Healthcare in Albuquerque and New York state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority also experienced failures.”

    No one would buy the MTA’s bonds. What, the MTA is borrowing money? I thought it had a surplus!

  • LIRR highest since 1949, that is quite a blast to the past, hard to imagine that in 1949 the LIRR was higher than now.
    can anyone direct me to growth stats for metro-north concerning congestion pricing and ability to absorb, thought i had read here in streetsblog that metro-north could absorb 30 percent increase over their entire system.
    Yonkers has a DGEIS out for a waterfront development that will have 3752 apartment residences and adjacent to this Brownfield project, another 2000 resident project, these two project fall next to two Hudson line stations that are within one mile,they had 1300 daily commuter riders when surveyed in Aug 2006. I foresee a huge increase in rider ship with the congestion pricing and wonder how metro-north could possible absorb this many riders in a short period. the station were just rehabilitated , the rush hour trains are already pretty crowded. Email me if you think the subject is going to stray too far from the daily headlines.

  • Larry Littlefield

    (can anyone direct me to growth stats for metro-north concerning congestion pricing and ability to absorb)

    All you need to know is this — all rail lines have virtually unlimited availability to expand service in non-rush hours. They just need more cars and crews. In the suburbs, parkign is also an issue. Part time telecommuting and bicycles could solve many problems. And given the money situation, this is the sort of solution that will have to be pursued.

  • Niccolo Machiavelli

    Sorry Larry, I think they need to know a little more than that. Metro North has been growing its off-peak and reverse commute business (the fastest growing sector of the commuter rail market) relentlessly for the last decade. The LIRR on the other hand can’t grow that business because it is still crippled by the inability to push Main Line third track through the NIMBYs in near Nassau. When East Side Access comes on line the additional capacity will overwhelm the restrictions along the mainline and will be rendered useless unless that component is added as well.

    Both MN and LIRR are virtually at capacity during rush hour. Yeah, you can imagine that we can shift the labor needs of NYC to off peak and simply add trains and crews to accommodate the transition but there is a reason why people and businesses want to work 9-5.

    Likewise there is a reason why people even come to work at all in the day of the computer. NYC thrives on having vibrant, criss-crossed social/business networks, this is a culture that cannot be replicated in Fargo or Denver. It is the central economy of density a diseconomy of which is traffic congestion.

  • What, the MTA is borrowing money? I thought it had a surplus!

    Larry, I thought you knew that a surplus is when you earn more than you spend in one budget period, the opposite of a deficit. Debt is money you borrow, which is not incompatible with a surplus.

    Also, the surplus is in the operating budget, while the debt is for capital expenses.

  • Larry Littlefield

    (Also, the surplus is in the operating budget, while the debt is for capital expenses.)

    Like painting, or replacing the same number of signal interlockings and subway cars you need to replace every year to keep the existing system from falling apart.

  • Niccolo Machiavelli

    Operating Funded Capital. Who woulda thunk that after you bought the signals and cars they needed to be maintained? Maintained and operated?