Albany Gifts $350 Million to Flyover States
Politicians in New York State's legislature have killed congestion pricing for New York City, reports the NY Times, Gothamist. By not acting today, Albany has given up New York City's chance at $350 million in federal grants, assuring the money will be distributed elsewhere. Congestion pricing, the $8 fee to enter Manhattan's business districts would have funneled millions of dollars into projects like the Second Avenue subway while simultaneously reducing traffic on Manhattan streets.
Labels: Transportation
5 Comments:
The $350mm was to be used simply to set up the program. The surveillance apparatus necessary for this plan is enormous. Supposedly, the money raised, after operating expenses, was to be used for transit enhancements, generally better bus service in the outer boros, but after seeing bond issue after bond issue, transit tax increase after transit tax increase approved by voters without leading to service enhancements, I don't see how anyone would expect that improved service would come of this. If you want to make our lives better, raise fares so that they cover operating costs for the system and use outside revenue sources to fund capacity additions, stop eating you seed corn to subsidize fares. Manhattan would see a bigger traffic reduction and be better served by building underground routes to get through traffic off surface streets, so that when you and I travel from Marin Blvd. to Flatbush Avenue we don't need to cross 25 traffic lights in Manhattan and budget 4 hours for the round trip. We can do better than this plan, but we probably never will.
Congestion pricing is an inevitable reality. The failure to secure the $350 million for creating the system simply means that eventually, when congestion pricing comes to New York, instead of the federal government footing the bill, local governments will be paying.
Raising fares is a flawed strategy. Everyone benefits when people ride mass transit, both from an environmental standpoint, and from the perspective of drivers contending with fewer cars.
For years, government subsidies have reduced the true cost of automobiles while sacrificing mass transit systems. The subsidy over the lifetime of Amtrak pales in comparison to the billions spent constructing an interstate highway system, which automobiles travel on free of charge, and that continually requires expansion in an unsustainable cycle.
"For years, government subsidies have reduced the true cost of automobiles while sacrificing mass transit systems."
Auto taxes subsidize transit not the other way around. Any car trip implies payment of gas taxes, and in this area tolls on profitable toll roads. Look, you can subsidize transit, but then don't wonder where the money is to improve the system: it went to fare subsidies. I use PATH, but let's be honest, the people riding the system, while not rich, are not poor, they don't need to subsidized to the tune of a buck or two each way, and we'd be better served if the subsidy money was pumped into making the system better. I am not a morally better person for riding PATH, while an RN who commutes from Greenville to a job at a hospital in Queens and needs to drive is less moral and needs to be punished via a tax to make her take 3 trains and a bus to get to work. All options have their place. The guy commuting to Goldman Sachs from Summit does not "need" a transit subsidy. At the most we should subsidize poor riders, not indiscriminately subsidize all rides regardless of who is traveling.
We have a nation that is rapidly growing in population and becoming more wealthy, increasing the demand for mobility -- this requires capacity addition to all modes of mobility, not just one.
And as I've noted before this plan, by its very terms, aims for a mere 6% traffic reduction. As noted before, 20% of Manhattan traffic is crosstown through traffic just trying to get through the city without stopping. A plan to get that traffic off surface streets would achieve three times the traffic reduction, would open markets east and west of Manhattan, help with disaster-preparedness and improve quality of life for the entire region. You could also finance it with tolls, because cars are so valuable that people are willing to pay an amount higher than operating cost to use them, quite a contrast with NJ transit.
The federal interstate system is the largest automobile subsidy in the history of the world. "The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over 12 years; it ended up
costing $114 billion (adjusted for inflation, $425 billion in 2006
dollars [6] and taking 35 years to complete," while Amtrak's lifetime subsidy is a little more than $13 billion.
Interstate Highway Wiki
Cato Institute
The New Jersey gas tax raises a mere $553 million dollars, but in 2009, capital expenditures for highways include $258 million to "to maintain our attack on highway congestion," and another $207 million simply to resurface existing highways-- in addition to the operating budget that includes $140 million in highway maintenance.
NJ Transportation Trust Fund
NJ DOT
As you said, "We have a nation that is rapidly growing in population and becoming more wealthy, increasing the demand for mobility." Cars are an unsustainable form of transportation. They require fuel from hostile countries. They produce harmful emissions. They clog streets and require space to park.
Mass transit on the other hand, more efficiently consumes energy, and consumes cleaner energy. Many buses burn natural gas, a fuel produced domestically, and that burns cleaner. Electric powered trains consume energy generated in power stations far more efficient than the equivalent power produced by automobiles. And while a large portion of electric grid power comes from fossil fuels, advances in green energy will further reduce the carbon footprint in the future. Yet, even diesel trains more efficiently use energy than automobiles.
Even drivers benefit from mass transit. Imagine yourself in a car, driving behind a bus full of 50 passengers; then imagine the road with 50 more cars, but no bus. Or how about 1,000 buses and 50,000 more cars? So even well paid executives should be given an incentive to take mass transit, because whether or not they need the subsidy, by taking mass transit they have benefited everyone.
As to the case of a commuter traveling between Greenville and Queens, I would suggest finding housing in a different location. People move for employment all the time. You wouldn't accept a job in Toledo, Ohio, and not expect to move.
Too many points to hit them all:
We obviously have different goals here. Mine is to maximize personal mobility. Yours seems to be to get people to not use cars as an end in itself, whether or not that degrades mobility, and in fact even in light of the fact that it very likely will degrade mobility. In terms of my personal philosophy on the point, this is a good guide:
http://www.reason.org/pb43_whymobilitymatters.pdf
As to why someone might live in Greenville and work in Queens: well perhaps our RN is in a two-earner couple and her husband has a job in Montvale. Perhaps she's caring for a relative in Greenville. Maybe her family is nearby, maybe she loves her local community and is active in local volunteering. Maybe she works in Newark twice a week and Queens three days a week. Whatever the reason, it should not be a herculean commute to get to a job that is a whopping 6 miles away because Manhattan happens to be in between.
NY-NJ do not have a metaphysically perfect highway network that is not in need of expansion, any more than they have a metaphysically perfect transit network not in need of expansion. We need both to be expanded.
I would also suggest you take a look at the experience with the road tax in Stockholm, just as another view on the system. In Stockholm the system is in place, but it is specifically intended to raise money to build additional ROAD capacity to route traffic around center city Stockholm. And not as pie-in-the-sky, the projects being financed are in fact being built right now (Wikipedia is a perfectly good source for a description). If that was the goal of the NYC plan, then I think it would be a nice idea. I note the Stockholm plan in part because many Americans are under the misapprehension that Europeans are somehow living on some advanced societal plane above us and don't use cars or build roads. They do both with vigor, fully aware of the commercial and social benefits of mobility -- a lesson we lost sight of in this area about 40 years ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home