Bridge Tolls, Higher Fares, and the Art of Compromise
The MTA’s so-called doomsday budget, which will raise subway and bus fares to $2.50 and is all but assured of passing when the agency board meets Wednesday morning, has—to simplify the situation somewhat—created a classic New York City economic face off: subway/bus riders and their advocates versus drivers/bridge-crossers and their state senators. Neither group wants to pay drastically more than what they’re paying now to get around the city, especially into and out of Manhattan; both sides make excellent points in their arguments. Sounds like its time for a compromise party!
First, the straphanger perspective. Adding 50-cents to the cost of each ride, a 23-percent hike, with accompanying higher prices for monthly metro cards and commuter train tickets, is just too large right now. With so many people struggling, charging that much more is heavy-handed. The compromise plan being supported by Governor Paterson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver would call for just an eight-percent increase. Let’s go a bit higher on that, make it 12.5-percent—a quarter more—and I think subway and bus riders will feel like they’ve done their part and paid their share.
Of course, that compromise plan also calls for tolls over 13 East River and Harlem River crossings that are currently free… tolls that match the amount paid for a subway ride-- $2.25, in the alternate universe we’re creating here. Another proposal from a group led by a former MTA chief, the Ravitch Plan, calls for tolls of $5 over those crossings, in AND out of Manhattan. Just like a 50-cent hike for bus ride is too much right now for straphangers, $5 is too much right now for people who drive into the city. A handful of democratic state senators from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, is refusing the support the Ravitch Plan AND the Paterson/Silver compromise, because they don’t want any tolls at all, even though many more of their constituents use mass transportation than drive into Manhattan. Here are some statistics from nytimes.com:
In (Senator Carl) Kruger’s (Brooklyn) district, the 2000 census estimated that about 56,000 people regularly took public transportation to work, while about 47,000 drove to work, according to data compiled by the Regional Plan Association, a civic organization that supports the authority rescue. But among those drivers, only about 6,000 drove to jobs in Manhattan, and a majority of them would be expected to pay the new tolls.
The census estimated that there were about 64,000 transit commuters in (Sen. Kevin) Parker’s (Brooklyn) district in 2000, compared with about 36,000 auto commuters, about 5,000 of whom drove to jobs in Manhattan.
Mr. Parker said that he opposed the authority proposal in part because he believed that money from bridge tolls should be used for bridge maintenance, not financing mass transit. He said he had heard from both sides among his constituents and would not make his decision based on the preponderance of transit users over drivers.
“I don’t think just about my district,” Mr. Parker said. “I think about everybody in Brooklyn, everybody in the City of New York and the people of the state, and I don’t think this is the best way to do this, particularly when there are other alternatives.”
Interesting, no? The Senators are opposing the tolls, even though mass transit hikes would affect many more of their constituents. (Keep in mind also that the compromise rescue bill also calls for a new payroll tax, which is helping keep any Republican senators from getting on board). There’s a cynical perspective that the people who drive into the city are generally wealthier than straphangers, but let’s not go there today.
It really comes down to the basic question of whether drivers should subsidize the transportation costs of people who don’t drive. I think the answer to that is: yes, to a degree. Majority rule—the numbers of people affected--should carry some weight; tolls over East River and Harlem Bridges would also be paid by non-New York City residents driving in from the Long Island and Westchester suburbs (of which I am one, for what that’s worth), and with the continued absence of a commuter tax, that doesn’t seem unfair; and it could only help in the ongoing efforts to reduce the number of cars entering, polluting, and crowding Manhattan streets.
Tweak the compromise, State Senators, and then pass it. You’ve got a few months before any fare hikes from the doomsday budget would go into effect, even if they pass Wednesday. We are all facing greater transit/commuting challenges. Let’s share the burden.
| Search Blog
|
Comments: 22
We only use the bridge tolls once in awhile, but, still resent the cost. We don't take subways, or Metro North. Guess we are the lucky ones. We don't need Ez Pass. In the old days, the bus, and train were fifteen cents. Hard to believe. Hey, and pizza was fifteen cents, and a soda was a dime. The boat ride to Staten Island was a nickel. YIKES! It's all relevent.
I bet most folks are completely unaware that in 1972, the TBTA one-way bridge toll was 25 cents. The current toll is $5.00 - an increase of 2000%. For how long do you REALLY think the East & Harlem River bridge tolls will remain equal to the subway fare? Mass transit riders have the powerful Straphangers Campaign, the Manhattan-centered Mayor, his stooge Christine Quinn and all the limousine driven MTA officials in their corner. Drivers have Robert Sinclair and his pitifully weak Triple-A. Thank goodness for a few courageous State Senators who remind Manhattan of the very existence, not to mention the importance, of four other boroughs. Maybe THEY are aware of the opening statistic I presented here.
On behalf of the 500,000 residents of Staten Island who already pay a toll to travel within our own city, I say Yes to the East River Bridge tolls. We have done it for over 44 years so why shouldn't everyone else?
Mike H. hits the nail on the head. Drivers who pay MTA tolls are already subsidizing mass transit in NYC. Those of us who use free East River bridges are already paying for them with gas taxes, registration fees, high auto insurance rates, etc. And don't think for ONE minute that the MTA will peg bridge tolls to subway fares forever. As Mike H. points out, the days of paying for the maintenance of bridges via tolls is long gone. Drivers will be paying $10 round-trip over bridges within a year!
Thanks Edward - not just for having my back, but for pointing out what NY drivers must contribute to the State coffers even without the toll. When I'm in New Jersey, I have to pull in on "empty" to a Paramus gas station, where THEIR tax at least gives me a chance to defray part of the GW Bridge toll. That's because we even win the gas tax prize of these Unites States! Here - check it out my friends.
http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-rate.html
Jim Watkins should be thanked for helping to frame the complex MTA finance debate. Still, it’s quite an understatement for him to admit he's "simplified the situation somewhat." While he makes a fair case for why drivers should help straphangers pay the tab, Watkins -- like the Ravitch Commission, the Legislature and most media – makes no mention of one major transit stake-holder, and a primary beneficiary of subsidized subway service: namely, owners of realty within walking-distance of subway lines. Especially in Downtown and Midtown cores, where most towers are a stone’s throw from several interconnecting stops, subways are not a luxury, but something as essential to the viability and value of high-rises, as elevators and HVAC, and without subsidies for subway operations, most of these parcels would be worth a fraction of their present value.
Though this point appears obvious, it’s odd how rarely our business, media and government officials -- dependent on advertising and campaign dollars from New York's real estate industry -- have dared to utter a word about this other community of transit beneficiaries.
No one should ask owners of transit-dependent land to carry all the cost of closing MTA’s budget, but neither should they be omitted from discussion. Surely, owners in prime office areas willingly who assess themselves added Business Improvement District taxes for such minor amenities as fancy paving or designer benches, would readily help to maintain operation of the transit rolling stock that helps deliver occupants to their floor space, if the MTA’s need, and the equity of the situation, were fairly presented!
To paraphrase Jim Watkins, "It really comes down to the basic question of whether drivers,” straphangers and regional employers “should subsidize" the value of New York's priciest real estate, without some fair contribution from the owners of benefited parcels! The question answers itself!
I work with my mom on East 80 street and York Ave and Friday I work on 96 and Lexington. I do cleaning the house and wash the clothes every single day. I spent $5 from Coney Island to Manhattan. I cannot afford 5 bucks riding on a subway train and transfer to a bus. If they raise up the fare I will get nuts.
I completely disagree with any bridge tolls...the reason for this is that the MTA says that it only would costs two dollars...this costs is today..how about tomorrow when the MTA faces another budget deficit, what are they going to do?..i'll tell you what they would do...the bridge tolls would probably jump from 2 dollars to 4, 5 or 6 dollars...Also, drivers who take these East river bridges also paid for parking expenses because as anyone that lives in New York City knows that Traffic Law enforcement are on the lookout to give fines to anyone..so in order to avoid theses fines people are left to park their vehicles in parking lots in Manhattan which happens to be very expensive. I believe the MTA have been mismanaging their budget for years. As you know, the MTA provide and give alot of perks and benefits to the board members. For instance, some don't even pay rent because the MTA gives then stipend every month for rent....What needs to happend is to gather everyone and fire the entire board members, today there are many talented people without jobs savy enough to find solutions for this dire entity so called MTA. If we look at Wallstreet and hire all of those good and smart financial people that lost their jobs and hire them to run the MTA; perhaps we would be looking at a better and smarter plan to save the MTA from the mismanaging that has take place for years..So New Yorkers lets get together and tell the governor to stop all the perks especially paying the rent for people that make substancial amount of money at the MTA, this in turn would save money. Also, lets tell the governor to fire the board members....lets hire smart, financial savy individuals, with a business mentality to run our system..
I agree with Mike H, as going into the city can be quite expensive these days. I feel sorry for the "straphangers" and the cars that gas guzzle their way into the city, or out of it. I often wonder with all the toll hikes, where the money is going. They always seem to be working on the bridges, tunnels, and highways, but NEVER FINISH.
Another bridge that should be mentioned here is the TAPPEN ZEE. This bridge needs work and it should be tended too, before there is a major disaster. City dwellers, know so well the cost of everything, and those who travel there from Westchester, Duchess and Orange Counties, know how costly everything is. Between the gas prices and the costly tolls on the bridges, and in the subways, it seems unfair that the MTA seems to show favortism. We have to remember that the Metropolitan Area consists of at least, NYC, JERSEY and CT. And that my friends consists of a lot of traveling time.
The Metropolitan Area, in my opinion consists of NY, not just NYC, CT and New Jersey. Not everyone works in the city. Some people travel in the other direction, and still pay hefty tolls. Prices never go down, they keep going up. It is not like California, where you have freeways to travel on. Everywhere you go in the tri-state-area, you have TOLLS, TOLLS, AND MORE TOLLS!
How come NOONE is interested in the FURTHER -ghettoization- the tolls represent???
I live in the South Bronx, arguably NYC's most underserved community, and we are struggling here, but we are New Yorkers and we love our community AND our city. This talk about tolls saddens me and scares me as well. I work late and must take cab back home for safety issues. This toll would add hundreds to my budget... Why would you do this to the borough suffering most? Should I leave the Bronx?
Do you all want the Bronx to be further removed from Manhattan? Do you all support this? The Bronx needs help not marginalization. Please.
If you want tolls, set them up at the county's edge, by Westchester. No further RACIST and CLASSIST divisions and separations. We are one city, or, ARE WE?
I just want to add some arithmetic to the Richard Ravitch $10 round-trip toll proposal. Simply put, it's about $2,500 per year for the average river-crossing commuter. Does this 1980's dinosaur have a clue, or give a flying leap if he does? "An Other Greek" is onto an important idea in suggesting that we are all ONE CITY and that we shouldn't be tolled within its boundaries.
Pittsburgh PA uses over 20 major bridge crossings for their famous three rivers (Ohio, Allegheny, Monongahela) and dozens of others throughout the city. The toll for all of them is EXACTLY ZERO. Just imagine our politicians and MTA bureaucrats drooling over those structures if they ever went out there to get their paws on them! I'd love to see them try it though, because if they did, the only question would be from which bridge those clowns would be....... well, you know.
Ah. This whole thing makes me sad. As of earlier today, the MTA board has voted 12-1 on increasing the fares. I have to make my budget even tighter just to be able to afford my monthly metrocard at this rate. I wonder if we'll be required to pay TAXES on fares and tolls too in the future, right on top of ever increasing fares and tolls that less and less of us are able to reasonably afford.
If you are not lucky enough to live near where you work, which is often the case, then you have to pay the fare hikes. It seems like we have no choice, especially, when we are in such a depressed state of the economy. It would be nice if we could have "freeways" in the tri-state-area! Between the gas and the tolls, it's no wonder everyone is "broken".
i dont like that they rais ing the hite
i dont like that they rais ing the hite
i dont like that they rais ing the hite
i dont like that they rais ing the hite
i dont like that they rais ing the hite
This is a PS to my comment above:
I still agree with Jim Watkins closing message: Everyone who gains from transit service should "share the burden." But with all respect, Jim, -- most in the business/political/media establishment pushing to hikes only payroll taxes, fares and tolls -- must either be less than candid, or in deep denial, to exempt owners of center city transit-served land, from the group of stakeholders who should help "share the burden."
As I stated in a submission to the MTA last year, Frederic C. Howe, a prominent urban planning expert nearly a century ago, found only shortly after NY's first subways were built, that increased land values near to, and caused by, this new subway service, in only a portion of the benefited neighborhoods, could have financed construction of the entire system at that time, still leaving room for a handsome landowners’ profit. And this was before the boom in skyscraper development!
Over the past century, these owners have reaped unspeakable windfalls from subway service, but -- sadly for New York's less wealthy -- the realty lobby seems to have plowed much of their gains into media ads and campaign contributions, making it tough for journalists and politicians to speak candidly about the fairness of charging the workers of Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, hundreds more to subsidize service, while tower owners owing most of their land value to those subsidies, contribute nothing to them!
Moreover, by forcing drivers to pay more to commute from areas too far from subways, the Ravich plan could, ironically, boost center city subway-served land values even MORE – making it even MORE outrageous that this land might continued to escape any transit benefit zone assessment!
The unfairness of this picture demands that the State Senate scrap the Ravich plan, and build an alternate proposal from scratch, placing at least a third of the cost of closing the MTA budget, on transit's high-rise, subway-served land owners.
Another irony: By shunning active discussion of transit benefit zone assessments in areas of EXISTING subways, the real estate industry misses a major opportunity to introduce this concept to help finance expansion of our transit grid into outlying parts of our region! If benefit zone assessments were established in areas where new transit lines are planned, then a modest tax on some of the foreseeable resulting jump in realty value from these new routes, could be dedicated to financing new bonds that can finance this ambitious construction, without unfair burden to taxpayers in general. And this is precisely the kind of ambitious new planning that our region, and the nation as a whole, will need, if we're to manage land development in the more energy-efficient manner required to combat climate change!
How strange it would be to plan new transit routes to cut our carbon footprints in outlying areas, while DISCOURAGING transit within the 5 Boroughs, by raising the cost on existing riders? If for no other reason, drawing a fair share of subsidy support from benefited land, is essential, to avoid causing an increase in energy use and CO2 output, by commuters!
After all, while unhappy businesses, and subway or car commuters can vote with their feet -- by escaping to regions -- landowners have not yet found a practical way to move land, to avoid paying their fair share for subway service.
On a related point, we can't reasonably ask landowners in areas of any new transit extensions to use some of their value increase to finance new service, without finally phasing in a charge for the historic windfalls on existing subway areas, and also, a fair charge for the cost of current subsidies needed for ongoing operation, maintenace, and capital replacement on existing routes! After all, isn't a century long enough for ordinary taxpayers to subsidize these private windfalls?
Let's make sure our leaders understand this basic fact: Straphangers AND Skyscrapers are BOTH major beneficiaries of subsidized rapid transit, so BOTH should bear a fair share of the subsidy burden!
$2.5 a ride, $103 a monthly pass, you have got to be kidding me...
Under the bad economy, people in NYC are already suffering, this move from MTA is like they think people here are not suffering enough, they have to stab us behind our back.
Where is the corporation's social responsibility?
Hi Jim:
I have a great idea. As a chubby person myself I actually drink Coke 0 but if they are going to tax soft drinks maybe they should take that revenue and make the walkway bridges over Queens blvd instead of taxing us and putting the $$$$$$ in politicians pockets. Then they'll probably put a 25 cent toll on the walkers. Wouldn't it be nice to save some lives instead of padding pockets? I wish I could run this state it would be so much better. I am a woman
Have a great day