New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority expects to have a “gap” in its 2008 budget of $345 million, climbing to more than $1.1 billion in 2009, nearly $2 billion in 2010, and more than $2 billion per year after that. To close the gap, it proposes to cut service, including some trains and several buses, and raise fares by 23 percent.
Does this deserve your subsidy?
Flickr photo by Jenniferrt66.
Even after these changes, it projects losses of $266 million in 2010, $454 million in 2011, and more than $600 million in 2012 (see page 18). The big problem is that the city and state of New York are both tapped out — “Neither the city nor the state has any money,” says Mayor Bloomberg. Governor David Paterson adds the state has “vast budget problems.”
As a result, the nation’s largest transit agency has to rely more on — would you believe it? — transit revenues to fund its operations. If the budget is approved, subway riders will pay for 83% of operating costs (up from 59%), bus riders 48% (up from 39%), and commuter rail riders 51% to 61% (up from 44% to 55%) (see pages 16-17).
Some transit riders are outraged about this “redistribution.” Says Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, MTA should not be “putting more of these expenses on the riders and less on the sectors that benefit from the transit system.”
A few rehabilitation centers viagra india viagra also accept Medicare and Medicaid, check your healthcare provider if they deal with such genital weakness. The http://robertrobb.com/trumps-irresponsible-budget/ buy cialis online quality of erection is satisfactory to turn an intercourse into sexual pleasure. buy cheap cialis Wind Releasing Pose or Pawanmuktasana: Pawanmukta means releasing air or wind. Being formulated in jelly format, the medicine enhances the timely eruption of hard penile cialis samples online erection.
Why the heck not? Transit officials like to say that transit is a “public good,” meaning people benefit from it even if they don’t use it.
To some degree, almost anything — food, shelter, transportation, even entertainment — can be considered a public good.
For the most part, these things are private. Nearly all of the benefits of passenger transportation go to the people who are being transported, so they should pay the cost. But shouldn’t society pay that part represented by the public good?
The problem with that is that such payments almost immediately become politicized, meaning those who have the most power get most of the benefits.
Why should taxpayers in upstate New York pay for transit service on Long Island (whose residents have far higher incomes)? Why should auto drivers in Arizona or Michigan (who historically pay gas taxes than their states receive from the federal government) subsidize transit riders in New York (which historically receives more federal transportation funds than its auto drivers pay in gas taxes). As Russianoff says, this represents a redistribution of income — from the poor to the rich.
If society believes that low-income people need subsidies or a safety net, that is a different question and can be dealt with by giving people transportation vouchers. But the idea that businesses benefit from transit and so they should be forced to pay much of the cost is not economically justified.
New York City may be the only part of the U.S. that really depends on its transit system. If city businesses think they can’t live without transit, they are free to subsidize it, preferably by paying part of their employees’ and customers’ transit fares. But just how does the rest of the U.S. benefit from keeping Manhattan the way it is instead of becoming what it would be without heavily subsidized transit?
Unowho wrote:
“Isn’t it remarkable that The Fountainhead sells 100K copies a year 65 years after its first edition, and The Population Bomb is out of print?”
Not really, different genre, different market.
There was the film in the late 1940’s.
Also it helps that Ayn Rand, has taken on some what a cult following.
On November 21st, 2008, Dan said:
No Craig, I’m just pointing out you have no evidence to back your assertion. Thanks!
————
Like all the evidence you used to prove me wrong.
Sure I see what you mean.
Craig, I asked for evidence. No need to change the subject. I ask again for clarity:
Please provide evidence for your assertion that
uknowhoo:
Your argument from false equivalence fails to impress.
Sales figures from The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged don’t refute projected demand of SFD in 2050 or current demographic trajectories that lead to such projections.
HTH.
DS
In 1975 you could buy a house for 18,000 dollars. the same house was up to 400,000.00 before the crash
Hold on to your wallets, folks. Here comes the next bailout.
What ever, US money has been so devalued over the years, rolls toilet paper more sense as a means of exchange.
Dan: Craig, I asked for evidence. No need to change the subject. I ask again for clarity:
JK: AND I asked you for evidence that CO2 can actually cause dangerous global warming. No need to change the subject, just provide proof of YOUR claim.
Thanks
JK
Jesus Christ.
[/ignore]
Karlock, you are arguing a fallacy. Seventh graders can deconstruct this puerile argumentation structure:
You* will never accept my values, or anyone else’s values, when they don’t comport with your narrow ideology’s values. Thus your request as stated is impossible to fulfill.
Go ahead and choose to believe that society can easily** adapt to temperature ranges and conditions never before seen in our societies’ development.
I don’t care what “you” or your ideology believes. Nor do societies. Societies have already spoken. Your worldview got left behind. You are yelling at the ship from the dock as it disappears over the horizon.
Now stop trolling and lessen the burden on Randal’s servers. I shall send a note to Greasemonkey forthwith to add [killfile] for this site.
[ignore]
Last time ignore turns off. I gotta stop drinking espresso before eating.
DS
* or anyone else, for that matter.
** That is: adaptation without “danger” to individuals or societies.
Projected demand in 2050 is not for Patriot Murrican-type single-fam detached on large lots for everyone!
That’s right, in a few decades few people will prefer living in single family homes. Like today in Europe after 60+ years of managed growth Europeans have finally been weaned of their desire for single family homes, nobody wants them, they sell for nothing in most European metro areas because most Europeans aspire to live in apartments.
Are Americans really aware how much the typical US single family house would sell for in a Western European metro area?
Ettinger, your argument is premised on 2050 being like today.
Demographics and availability of resources will likely be much different, necessitating a change in the pattern of the built environment.
This likelihood shouldn’t be a threat to your self-identity, ideology, or the sales of The Fountainhead.
DS
Europe today is the direction the US is headed to.
Well, you can make your investment decisions based on where and how Al Gore tells you to live. I will make mine based on where he seeks to (but his followers won’t let him) live.
Why are auto users and supporters unwilling to pay their fair share of the real cost of auto usage? Pollution, congestion, having to bomb Iraq every decade, etc. etc. etc.?
So, D4P, you don’t own and/or drive automobiles?
If I was a dictator of a nation my transportation “plan” would be simple. A 100% user fee system.
If you want to drive your car then fine —> pay a gas tax that will equal the cost of maintaining roadways.
If you want to take transit then fine —> when you step onto a bus, the bus fare will equal the cost of maintaining the bus system.
sounds fair to me
Public transit advocates NEVER advocate this. We all know the answer to this right?
Ettinger wrote:
“Europe today is the direction the US is headed to.”
Well in Europe transport policy has been more open market based, in that if they are going to subsidize road transport, then you’ll have to subsidize rail/transit. Germans have their Autobahns & HSR.
“Well, you can make your investment decisions based on where and how Al Gore tells you to live. I will make mine based on where he seeks to (but his followers won’t let him) live.”
So, the Gore’s have made money from selling oil and chances are that Dan own stuff made from oil too.
It’s like the difference between how the Swiss and Americans view guns.
The Swiss tend to view them as weapons.
Americans tend to view them as toys.
ode wrote:
“If I was a dictator of a nation my transportation “plan†would be simple. A 100% user fee system.”
Fair enough, but why be a dicktater?
“If you want to drive your car then fine â€â€> pay a gas tax that will equal the cost of maintaining roadways.”
The flaw here is that not all automobiles use gas.
“If you want to take transit then fine â€â€> when you step onto a bus, the bus fare will equal the cost of maintaining the bus system.”
Fine.
“sounds fair to me
Public transit advocates NEVER advocate this. We all know the answer to this right?”
Believe it or not most transit advocates DO advocate for this. The problem is that vulgar libertarian socialists fight tooth and nail against this!
quote from highwayman:
“Believe it or not most transit advocates DO advocate for this. The problem is that vulgar libertarian socialists fight tooth and nail against this!”
What in the world is a Libertarian socialist?
I never heard of that term before.
I wrote “vulgar libertarian socialists”.
Libertarian socialists are some thing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Now land use related, we also have geolibertarians too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Geolibertarianism reminds me of another example where Private Property Rightists (PPRs) have it wrong: right of exclusion.
That is: implicit in PPRs argumentation is that private property is handed down from the clouds on stone tablets. Private property is an absolute.
Nothing could be more wrong. Private property is a social institution, in that we all agree to adhere to laws regarding private property. But wait: occasionally we disagree with these laws and we change them. Women are no longer property, nor are slaves, etc.
Back to geolibertarianism. We also changed rights of exclusion to private property over the years. So we see that private property is a social institution, and limit the rights of private property owners.
DS
Dan what you saying reminds of some thing like Native Americans had territorial land claims, though they were on a tribal level.
NEWS FLASH: Bicycling.com has once again named Portland as the best US city for bicycling.
Tune in to the Antiplanner tomorrow morning when he’ll no doubt argue that Portland is actually the worst US city for cycling, and explain why Houston is actually the best.
To: D4P
YOU are being a Troll. If you want to be taken seriously then start acting like it.
If not then I’ll ignore you and that means you’ve just lost 1 audience member.
Keep it up and nobody will want to talk to you.
To: D4P
You ignored my question about whether or not you drive and/or own a car.
Dan, I agree that my logic was flawed. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to d4P’s rhetorical question about Vancouver’s housing prices.
Highway —> “libertarian socialist”? seriously, where do you get this stuff? It’s definitely entertaining. 😉
As for transit pricing, don’t NYC’s riders already pay pretty high rates?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-tollroad17-2008oct17,0,1965129.story
Hey look on the bright side, there are toll roads asking for money too!
NPWeditor –
Your question was a non sequitur.
Wow. I check in this AM and see some people have been very busy.
cost overruns on Fulton Street Transit Center: $450 million
estimated cost to MTA/NYC for new Yankee Stadium Metro-North station: $91 million*
Dan spending the weekend posting on AP: priceless
Also on the subject of the MTA, I think railfans will appreciate this: Lionel’s first subway car
The R-27 was one on the last great products of the St. Louis Car Company, and was in service for over 30 years.
* amount to be paid by NY Yankees: zero
Dan spending the weekend posting on AP: priceless
Folks trying to say Dan commenting once a day while having morning coffee = spending the weekend posting on AP: priceless.
Now, where is that list of road project overruns to provide context…
DS
Hey, no need to get defensive, I’m only concerned for your well-being — a 7-day a week posting schedule can’t be good. Take a break, enjoy life, maybe find an interest that doesn’t involve pounding a keyboard.
D4P
Your previous question (Why are auto users and supporters unwilling to pay their fair share of the real cost of auto usage? Pollution, congestion, having to bomb Iraq every decade, etc. etc. etc”) includes an inductive fallacy.
My question was indeed loaded, but you sir are a hypocrite. If you’re driving, you’re part of the problems you mention: pollution, congestion, bombing Iraq, etc. Get off your high horse, or out of whatever petroleum consuming transportation device you use, before condemning all drivers as being unwilling to address the externalities of driving.
craig asked, “Why are transit users and supporters unwilling to pay their fare share of the real cost of the transit options they demand?”
Like most Antiplanners around here, craig implied that only transit users and supporters are guilty in this respect, and that auto users and supporters are willing to pay their fair share of the real cost of auto usage.
My question was intended to point out the obvious double standard used by Antiplanners around here.
NPWeditor wrote:
“My question was indeed loaded, but you sir are a hypocrite. If you’re driving, you’re part of the problems you mention: pollution, congestion, bombing Iraq, etc. Get off your high horse, or out of whatever petroleum consuming transportation device you use, before condemning all drivers as being unwilling to address the externalities of driving.”
The big problem is that transport policy has been loaded for years against railroads and transit. You can’t get some thing for nothing.
Get …out of whatever petroleum consuming transportation device you use, before condemning all drivers as being unwilling to address the externalities of driving.â€Â
The issue with user fees/tolls going to just maintenance of roads is that they don’t pay for externalities of internal combustion engines. No fees we have do. Our system is not set up to address externalities/environmental justice.
This is why carbon taxes are a good vehicle to get toward paying the real costs of what we do. Proposals to lower wage taxes and increase consumption taxes will get enacted into policy within a decade, I aver.
DS
The big problem is that transport policy has been loaded for years against railroads and transit.
Assuming this is true, doesn’t this speak to the insidiousness of government planning? What makes you think that government that “loads” policy against one industry can be trusted to honestly and successfully plan and manage said industry? How can you trust a government that allows an unconstitutional entity to pledge $7.4 trillion, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to bail out the corrupt banking industry with taxpayer funds?
Let the market allocate resources rather than have the Fed and federal government spur malinvestment. Let both drivers and transit riders pay the real cost, including externalities, of their actions. Let the chips fall where they may.
Dan: Proposals to lower wage taxes and increase consumption taxes will get enacted into policy within a decade, I aver.
Amen! Can I count on your support Dan? Especially the first part?
Then my most productive employees will finally start paying the same taxes as D4P – rather than refusing to work for me in high tax states like California. 🙂
To: D4P
YOU are a Troll, a liar, and a hypocrite.
Your arguments are based on ridiculous claims, fallacies, and strawmans.
There’s a saying in life:
“Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”
You’ve already fooled me once by *pretending* to be interested in a serious discussion.
You will not fool me again.
GOOD BYE—-> you’re now on my ignore-list
Can I count on your support Dan? Especially the first part?
Of course. Tax the bads, relieve the burden on the goods. No brainer.
When folks get used to paying taxes on bads (externalities), taxes can be raised as population increases place increasing burdens on the biosphere. Price those externalities out of existence, I say.
——
Let the market allocate resources…unconstitutional entity…
The recent past hasn’t killed this talking point yet. Fortunately decision-makers have for the forseeable future.
DS
Dan said:
“The issue with user fees/tolls going to just maintenance of roads is that they don’t pay for externalities of internal combustion engines. No fees we have do. Our system is not set up to address externalities/environmental justice.”
There’s a problem with the “externalities argument”.
EVERYTHING runs on FF fossil fuels either directly or indirectly.
EVERYTHING on this planet was produced with FF fossil fuels.
Electric trains also run on FF. Where does the electricity come from? -> burning coal or natural gas at a power plant
Petrochemicals are used in the production of almost every consumer product imaginable from lipstick to computer chips.
Even babies are produced with FF energy.
Farmers use petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers to grow crops.
If you’re going to demand that cars and freeways pay for “externalities” due to the consumption of FF then you must be consistent and apply it to EVERYTHING. Who wants to go down that road? no pun intended ^_^
NPWeditor wrote:
“The big problem is that transport policy has been loaded for years against railroads and transit.
Doesn’t this speak to the insidiousness of government planning? What makes you think that government that “loads†policy against one industry can be trusted to honestly and successfully plan and manage said industry? How can you trust a government that allows an unconstitutional entity to pledge $7.4 trillion, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to bail out the corrupt banking industry with taxpayer funds?”
That’s the whole irony, people like Cox, Karlock, CPZ & ROT have benefited vastly from big government.
“Let the market allocate resources rather than have the Fed and federal government spur malinvestment. Let both drivers and transit riders pay the real cost, including externalities, of their actions. Let the chips fall where they may.”
Nice in theory, putting that into practice is some thing else all together, saddly.
Dan wrote:
“Get …out of whatever petroleum consuming transportation device you use, before condemning all drivers as being unwilling to address the externalities of driving.â€Â
Well no one is an angel.
“The issue with user fees/tolls going to just maintenance of roads is that they don’t pay for externalities of internal combustion engines. No fees we have do. Our system is not set up to address externalities/environmental justice.”
Dan, this is a political can of worms, a lot people have been socially engineered into auto dependence.
“This is why carbon taxes are a good vehicle to get toward paying the real costs of what we do. Proposals to lower wage taxes and increase consumption taxes will get enacted into policy within a decade, I aver.”
I see your point. Tax what you burn, not what you earn.
If you’re going to demand that cars and freeways pay for “externalities†due to the consumption of FF then you must be consistent and apply it to EVERYTHING.
Of course. This is the root of my statement ‘tax the bads’.
BTW, it is easier to capture emissions and sequester at 1500 stacks than 150,000,000 tailpipes (electric car benefit).
Dan, this is a political can of worms, a lot people have been socially engineered into auto dependence.
So what. People can’t learn to choose between greater choices? Lookit the VMT drop when gas went over $3/gal.
DS
Unowho: “Both Vancouver and BC have recently lost out to their less glamorous neighbors, Alberta and Edmonton, in population growth rates, median income, and housing affordability”
And this is caused by Vancouver’s growth management!!! Are you stupid or just ignorant???????
I seem to remember some sand or something in and around there that MIGHT just be responsible for that differential. I had heard from a friend of a friend that oil can be a profitable business. I called his bluff and said there was no way that oil could lead to economic growth…
Dan said:
“Of course. This is the root of my statement ‘tax the bads’.”
You do realize that this would cause a massive drop in standard of living right?
This is acceptable to you?
You do realize that this would cause a massive drop in standard of living right?
I realize this is a talking point.
I’ve seen no right-sing advocacy groups with figures or projections showing that eliminating wage taxes and implementing consumption taxes reduces living standards. Perhaps you have an op-ed with figures.
What would be helpful is projections of BAU and such a tax scheme in, say, 2050 for comparative purposes as well.
DS
I’m so glad I checked back on this thread, otherwise I would have missed my secret admirer, SL. How is it going, darling? Anyway, if my point wasn’t clear, Vancouver’s PR about its density and population growth is just that, PR. As far as population growth rates, Vancouver also lost out to Toronto (what, no oil?) and BC lost out to Ontario (for the provinces, only Alberta and Ontario had growth rates above the national average). Perhaps Statscan said it best in the release notes for the 2006 census:
“[b]etween 2001 and 2006, the growth rate of peripheral municipalities that surround the central municipality of Canada’s 33 census metropolitan areas was double the national average(+11.1% versus +5.4%). During the same period, the central municipalities grew more slowly (+4.2%) than the Canadian population and less than half as fast as the peripheral municipalities.â€Â
Translation: Barrie Ontario rules!
Mandatory MTA content: 2005 seems so long ago.
I’m not sure why you think you have an admirer, because I decided to reply to (ignorant) a comment about my home town up here in Canuckville.
That Vancouver and BC are beatan out by Ontario is hardly surprising, as Ontario has always – ALWAYS – been the centre of growth in Canada. The growth management plan of the fur traders, although prohibitive, unlikely resulted in this long standing dominance of Ontario. And who says Toronto doesn’t have growth management that “forces people” into oodles of highrises:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080916.BARBER16/TPStory/?query=%22john+barber%22
Why might the growth rate of a central municipality be slower? Could it be that there is very little land left available to (easily) (re)develop in inner cities and therefore more land is easily available in those “preipheral” areas. Is that supposed to be enlightening information?
Planners should make up their minds — either central cities are getting denser or they’re not, and either growth limitation policies encourage density or the spread of suburbs.
I wish I could reply to the rest of your post, but I couldn’t quite parse it even after running it through babelfish. I do hope for the sake of the lobbyist quoted in the Globe story that he doesn’t have a deposit on one of those condos in Toronto or in Vancouver where [c]ondo owners …are at greater risk for price depreciation than single-family homeowners in the suburbs….
Antiplanners should stop being such bloody hypocrites – either growth management makes a place more expensive or less expensive.
If you want some mindless people to indoctrinate into whatever your preconceived notions might be, then go to a first or second year econ class. Don’t go telling me that I supposedly think this or that. And things aren’t as simple as your simple mind believes them to be.
Couldn’t parse it out – sorry if you are too stupid to understand what someone says. Land in denser areas = more expensive, land in peripheral areas = less expensive. Raw land = harder to develop. Developed land = harder to develop.
Sorry if sarcams confuses you – my point being with Ontario is that it is has always been the leading centre of growth and that simplistic comparisons of your nature ignore the context of the situation. Here I’ll try again: “did the early settlers of the Canadian provinces enact some growth management plans that are responsible for the historical growth differentials between provinces?” No! In fact policies have long been biased in favour of Ontario. The long time differential is not because the settlers of BC crushed growth through government regulations.
Anyway, I can’t compete with your know-it-all nature about what I and planners think or are supposed to think, so I’m done talking to you.
Sustainibertarian: Antiplanners should stop being such bloody hypocrites – either growth management makes a place more expensive or less expensive.
It makes dwellings more expensive or you get less for your money, most likely both.
I imagine that if you limit land available for development, and at the same time you mandate that all new dwellings must also be small (the Al Gore growth model) then perhaps you may get a lot of Tokyo size dwellings that are cheaper than SF homes. But if you look at Europe, which is where the US is headed under Smart Growth, dwellings will become not only smaller but also more expensive (*).
Single family homes with yards will be out of reach for most people (like they are in Europe today) and this is why, unless you buy one of those houses for each one of your children now, they are less and less likely to be able to afford one in the future.
(*)E.g. Look here at appartment rents in Amsterdam . Typical family rents at median rent of $3100 for a 1300sqf 3 bdrm 1 bath appartment. Then you can look up Amsterdam on Google earth and you will be able to see clearly the Urban Growth Boundary. This is your future under growth management. Cordoned inside a small perimeter of expensive appartments. Pretty “Smart†Growth indeed if you are smart, and rich, enough to buy big houses with big back yards now! Otherwise, your children are headed towards becoming renters in high-density apartments.