Privatize the New York City Subway System

[Deucey]

If the main issue here is that we need to use money better, privatization is not the answer. It will most likely just add more costs. Also, there are better, more efficient ways to make money. How about putting tolls on bridges to and from Manhattan? It's not like people don't have transit options already.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tolls? Nah.

 

1/2¢ sales tax dedicated specifically to and DOT. It makes everyone pay for it instead of penalizing drivers.

[RES2773]

Tolls? Nah.

 

1/2¢ sales tax dedicated specifically to and DOT. It makes everyone pay for it instead of penalizing drivers.

But I have to wonder, why aren't tolls the answer?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobtehpanda]

But I have to wonder, why aren't tolls the answer?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The problem is that the alternatives are full. Given that the MTA is already at capacity, even before we consider the Penn Station apocalypse or shutdown, the new ferry system is already struggling to accommodate large crowds, and the bike paths are all full up (to the point where they're doubling the Brooklyn Bridge ones), now would not be a great time to do it.

[RES2773]

The problem is that the alternatives are full. Given that the MTA is already at capacity, even before we consider the Penn Station apocalypse or shutdown, the new ferry system is already struggling to accommodate large crowds, and the bike paths are all full up (to the point where they're doubling the Brooklyn Bridge ones), now would not be a great time to do it.

The argument I am about to give is not completely original, as many people have said it before. The point is not being that we are charging drivers, it's that we charge certain drivers unfairly. The throgs neck, whitestone, Verrazano, and rfk bridge all have high tolls in areas where there aren't many options. Meanwhile, there are multiple options connecting long island to Manhattan at no cost that only help in creating more backups. By tolling all bridges, you may be able to charge less to people that don't have as many options. It doesn't hurt that it encourages transit use either.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deucey]

But I have to wonder, why aren't tolls the answer?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) Tolls are akin to a sin tax - paying for something by taking money from a specific group - ie cigarette taxes paying for kids healthcare: it's a public benefit so all the public should pay for it.

 

We all know the subway is the backbone of this economy, but using one demographic to pay for something that benefits everyone means, in this case, drivers foot the bill for transit customers but don't see any tangible benefit for them from it.

 

2) It's robbing Peter to pay Paul instead of fixing the financial house.

 

3) It screws over Long Islanders by making them pay a penalty for living outside the city to subsidize something they rarely use (I'm also against tolls on the VZ and Bronx bridges too since they're on the interstate system and the only way to freely move about the state they pay taxes to without alternatives. It's a captive/hostage situation.

 

4) A sales tax is more equitable since everyone buys stuff, so everyone would give up that half penny buying coffee, cooked food, cars or goods, it gives a dedicated revenue stream to and only those in NYC pay for it - whether tourists, thru-travelers or residents.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Tolls are akin to a sin tax - paying for something by taking money from a specific group - ie cigarette taxes paying for kids healthcare: it's a public benefit so all the public should pay for it.

We all know the subway is the backbone of this economy, but using one demographic to pay for something that benefits everyone means, in this case, drivers foot the bill for transit customers but don't see any tangible benefit for them from it.

2) It's robbing Peter to pay Paul instead of fixing the financial house.

3) It screws over Long Islanders by making them pay a penalty for living outside the city to subsidize something they rarely use (I'm also against tolls on the VZ and Bronx bridges too since they're on the interstate system and the only way to freely move about the state they pay taxes to without alternatives. It's a captive/hostage situation.

4) A sales tax is more equitable since everyone buys stuff, so everyone would give up that half penny buying coffee, cooked food, cars or goods, it gives a dedicated revenue stream to and only those in NYC pay for it - whether tourists, thru-travelers or residents.

I think a congestion fee works best for those that want to enter Manhattan. We already pay taxes in various ways that go back to the . Taxing for the same thing over and over and over and over again.

[Deucey]

I think a congestion fee works best for those that want to enter Manhattan. We already pay taxes in various ways that go back to the . Taxing for the same thing over and over and over and over again.

Except that you're still taking money from Peter to pay Paul and while Thomas gets off scot-free despite him receiving the actual benefit.

 

Even Bloomberg's proposal didn't mitigate that - what with people using the QMT or Battery Tunnel paying the difference between that toll and congestion charge, and exempting the FDR but not the approach roads from the Manhattan, W'burg or Queensboro bridges.

 

And pedestrians/non-drivers (Thomas) still shell out nothing but subway fare.

 

That's why a sales tax is more equitable: drivers still get to drive on roads their state and federal taxes pay/paid for, and they still can shunpike. With the tax, if anyone buys anything subject to sales tax, whether drivers, pedestrians, tourists, employees et.al, that 1/2¢ of every dollar goes back to as funding. It's a dedicated stream, a lucrative stream since everyone is buying food and drink and other goods that aren't tax-exempt (like first $100 of clothes, which makes no kinda sense to me BTW), and it forces everyone to share the pain instead of just drivers.

 

(Here's LA's Measure R sales tax for comparison)

[Deucey]

My point in all this is that sin taxes are a waste when the issue is one that affects everyone. It's why I hate luxury taxes and favor flat tax rates - no one should be penalized because they have the means or desire to do something that other demos don't.

 

It's like how child Medicaid is usually funded from tobacco taxes. If all tobacco users stopped buying cigarettes (and paying the tax), the program still has to be paid for, so why not make the demographic being taxed for it as broad as possible?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Except that you're still taking money from Peter to pay Paul and while Thomas gets off scot-free despite him receiving the actual benefit.

Even Bloomberg's proposal didn't mitigate that - what with people using the QMT or Battery Tunnel paying the difference between that toll and congestion charge, and exempting the FDR but not the approach roads from the Manhattan, W'burg or Queensboro bridges.

And pedestrians/non-drivers (Thomas) still shell out nothing but subway fare.

That's why a sales tax is more equitable: drivers still get to drive on roads their state and federal taxes pay/paid for, and they still can shunpike. With the tax, if anyone buys anything subject to sales tax, whether drivers, pedestrians, tourists, employees et.al, that 1/2¢ of every dollar goes back to as funding. It's a dedicated stream, a lucrative stream since everyone is buying food and drink and other goods that aren't tax-exempt (like first $100 of clothes, which makes no kinda sense to me BTW), and it forces everyone to share the pain instead of just drivers.

(Here's LA's Measure R sales tax for comparison)

The point should be to deter driving and incentivize taking public transit to alleviate congestion.

[Deucey]

But the subway can't handle the loads it has now, let alone more riders who'd give up their cars in a congestion charge scheme.

 

Add to it that if congestion charges fund but reduce driver numbers below 60th St, now there's a(nother) funding shortfall.

 

Kinda like how NYC and NYS are supposed to get $4.50/pack from cigarettes but a great number of smokers buy them for $8 instead of $13 by going to people/vendors that buy them from out of state. That lost revenue matters to the programs the tobacco fees support, but that Laffer curve tho...

 

It might work day few years, but once that Sound Crossing gains momentum and an end-run is pulled to avoid the crossing being a TBTA facility (like the Tappan Zee being right outside PA's zone), lost revenue for MTA is guaranteed.

 

It's a City issue, and the city should pay for it. A sales tax is the most fair way to pay since it covers everyone that does or could use the subway.

[Porter]

What do y'all think the immediate effect of a $5 swipe would be? Just like, if it changed overnight.

[bobtehpanda]

My point in all this is that sin taxes are a waste when the issue is one that affects everyone. It's why I hate luxury taxes and favor flat tax rates - no one should be penalized because they have the means or desire to do something that other demos don't.

 

It's like how child Medicaid is usually funded from tobacco taxes. If all tobacco users stopped buying cigarettes (and paying the tax), the program still has to be paid for, so why not make the demographic being taxed for it as broad as possible?

 

This is actually probably less true here than it is anywhere else. The majority of city households are car free, and most people take the train to commute.

 

 

I would be willing to bet good money that once you only account for commuters to Manhattan, the mode share tilts significantly in favor of transit.

 

While congestion charging would essentially strand Long Islanders, quite frankly, it's their own fault for relying on City bridges and vehemently protesting building more ways of getting of the Island. Islanders like to have lots of services without paying for any of them, hence why the State controls their county finances.

What do y'all think the immediate effect of a $5 swipe would be? Just like, if it changed overnight.

 

Well, Joe Lhota wouldn't have a job, as would the rest of the board.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is actually probably less true here than it is anywhere else. The majority of city households are car free, and most people take the train to commute.

 

 

I would be willing to bet good money that once you only account for commuters to Manhattan, the mode share tilts significantly in favor of transit.

 

While congestion charging would essentially strand Long Islanders, quite frankly, it's their own fault for relying on City bridges and vehemently protesting building more ways of getting of the Island. Islanders like to have lots of services without paying for any of them, hence why the State controls their county finances.

 

Well, Joe Lhota wouldn't have a job, as would the rest of the board.

Interesting. I wonder how many yuppie types without cars are in the high income slot? My building definitely has more high income folks due to the high rents, but I think people have cars or take Metro-North or the express bus. My neighbor has a car but he was the on the express bus with my a few night ago. I was shocked, but maybe he uses that when going to the city.

[Deucey]

This is actually probably less true here than it is anywhere else. The majority of city households are car free, and most people take the train to commute.

 

 

I would be willing to bet good money that once you only account for commuters to Manhattan, the mode share tilts significantly in favor of transit.

 

While congestion charging would essentially strand Long Islanders, quite frankly, it's their own fault for relying on City bridges and vehemently protesting building more ways of getting of the Island. Islanders like to have lots of services without paying for any of them, hence why the State controls their county finances.

 

 

Well, Joe Lhota wouldn't have a job, as would the rest of the board.

Interesting graphic, but I fail to see how it relates to whether a driving sin tax is fair or more effective than a sales tax that everyone would pay, irrespective of whether one lives in the city or drives/uses transit.

[Around the Horn]

Interesting graphic, but I fail to see how it relates to whether a driving sin tax is fair or more effective than a sales tax that everyone would pay, irrespective of whether one lives in the city or drives/uses transit.

 

I fail to see how congestion pricing is a "sin tax". With that logic, paying your fare on any form of public transportation is also a sin tax...

[RR503]

The term y'all are looking for is 'regressive tax.' Fares/tolls are items that are deducted from income, but are constant in dollar amount across brackets. Thus, as the amount being taxed increases, the percentage taken decreases, hence regressive. 

[bobtehpanda]

The term y'all are looking for is 'regressive tax.' Fares/tolls are items that are deducted from income, but are constant in dollar amount across brackets. Thus, as the amount being taxed increases, the percentage taken decreases, hence regressive. 

 

This isn't true though, because based on that graphic we know two things:

 

1. Most people don't drive

2. Those that do are significantly richer than their counterparts who don't.

 

The sales tax is the most regressive kind of tax in comparison, since richer people spend less as a percentage of their income on goods and services, versus the person who has to live from paycheck to paycheck and is thus spending everything they're earning.

[RR503]

This isn't true though, because based on that graphic we know two things:

 

1. Most people don't drive

2. Those that do are significantly richer than their counterparts who don't.

 

The sales tax is the most regressive kind of tax in comparison, since richer people spend less as a percentage of their income on goods and services, versus the person who has to live from paycheck to paycheck and is thus spending everything they're earning.

 

You're missing the point. The term regressive has nothing to do with the demographics of the taxpayers. It has to do with the mechanism of taxation -- a fixed dollar amount across brackets, which, when seen as a percentage of total income, decreases as earnings increase. 

[bobtehpanda]

You're missing the point. The term regressive has nothing to do with the demographics of the taxpayers. It has to do with the mechanism of taxation -- a fixed dollar amount across brackets, which, when seen as a percentage of total income, decreases as earnings increase. 

 

I'm saying that with the current fares/toll structure, it's effectively progressive, based on who it's hitting. (I mean, it's also not really a tax; it's more like a fee, given that there are other ways to cross the rivers that are free, congestion pricing or not). Either way, the sales tax is literally the textbook definition of 'regressive tax'.

[N6 Limited]

What do y'all think the immediate effect of a $5 swipe would be? Just like, if it changed overnight.

There would be even more people asking for swipes as you exit the turnstiles. 

[LTA1992]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that at least part of the system was privatized.

The RATP is private. They operate the Metro, Trams, Buses, and lines A and B of the RER. The STIF is the bridge between public and private that handles the allocation of funds needed to make improvements and expand.

 

Sent from my N9560 using Tapatalk

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The RATP is private. They operate the Metro, Trams, Buses, and lines A and B of the RER. The STIF is the bridge between public and private that handles the allocation of funds needed to make improvements and expand.

 

Sent from my N9560 using Tapatalk

The other issue that we must move away from is having everyone pack on the subway. If you look at other major cities, they have other alternatives besides the subway.  Everyone keeps saying that we should work on the subway, but the subway doesn't work for everyone, especially those that live in isolated areas.  Expand express bus service, ferry service, and introduce trams and light rail where it makes sense. Not every neighborhood is high density, and their needs are different.  I would also improve LIRR service in Queens with a fare that was reasonable (not $2.75, but a lower premium fare).  

 

I quite frankly can't understand the ongoing complaints from how people living far out in Queens where they knew there was no subway service, yet they keep yelling for it.  It makes no sense.  These are suburban areas that weren't constructed with the subway in mind and should receive other services.  Expand the subway where it makes sense, but the same people yelling for this don't seem to think about how overpopulation and the lack of infrastructure would NEGATIVELY impact their neighborhood.  Just look at the mess on Staten Island. More people keep moving there and the infrastructure can't sustain it.  

[LTA1992]

The other issue that we must move away from is having everyone pack on the subway. If you look at other major cities, they have other alternatives besides the subway. Everyone keeps saying that we should work on the subway, but the subway doesn't work for everyone, especially those that live in isolated areas. Expand express bus service, ferry service, and introduce trams and light rail where it makes sense. Not every neighborhood is high density, and their needs are different. I would also improve LIRR service in Queens with a fare that was reasonable (not $2.75, but a lower premium fare).

 

I quite frankly can't understand the ongoing complaints from how people living far out in Queens where they knew there was no subway service, yet they keep yelling for it. It makes no sense. These are suburban areas that weren't constructed with the subway in mind and should receive other services. Expand the subway where it makes sense, but the same people yelling for this don't seem to think about how overpopulation and the lack of infrastructure would NEGATIVELY impact their neighborhood. Just look at the mess on Staten Island. More people keep moving there and the infrastructure can't sustain it.

On that note, here is a video from the STIF explaining what they do. It's also out of date as the new T11 tram-train opened last week.

 

https://youtu.be/a7fShjzPC6I

 

Sent from my N9560 using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

We need something akin to London Overground for people traveling between the boroughs. Triboro RX could be that with some choice extensions (Long Island City, LGA. Jamaica, even Staten Island)

[bobtehpanda]

The other issue that we must move away from is having everyone pack on the subway. If you look at other major cities, they have other alternatives besides the subway.  Everyone keeps saying that we should work on the subway, but the subway doesn't work for everyone, especially those that live in isolated areas.  Expand express bus service, ferry service, and introduce trams and light rail where it makes sense. Not every neighborhood is high density, and their needs are different.  I would also improve LIRR service in Queens with a fare that was reasonable (not $2.75, but a lower premium fare).  

 

I quite frankly can't understand the ongoing complaints from how people living far out in Queens where they knew there was no subway service, yet they keep yelling for it.  It makes no sense.  These are suburban areas that weren't constructed with the subway in mind and should receive other services.  Expand the subway where it makes sense, but the same people yelling for this don't seem to think about how overpopulation and the lack of infrastructure would NEGATIVELY impact their neighborhood.  Just look at the mess on Staten Island. More people keep moving there and the infrastructure can't sustain it.  

 

A good portion of those neighborhoods were actually built with subway service in mind, the subway just never showed up. Extensions of the into Northeast Queens, the into Eastern Queens, and the into SE Queens have been on the table forever, but every time they got around to building it something (usually in the shape of a fiscal crisis or a war) stopped construction.