Am I the only one worried about congestion pricing?

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

To be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of congestion pricing, and I think generally we dedicate too much infrastructure in midtown Manhattan (the densest part of America) to cars and parking, especially since many of these folks in cars don't even live in the city.

However, I worry it will create a permission structure for the MTA to ignore it's cost problems, as well as permission for the city and state Government to just give the MTA less funding. As a result, there won't be any sort of tangible improvements in experience for subway riders, and the public begins to turn against congestion pricing after a year or two. In general, the public (and politicians) will be less supportive of future investment into the MTA. 

Already, the MTA's promises around congestion pricing are very very vaugue, which means they aren't really setting clear goals to meet so it's harder to hold them accountable if they don't use congestion pricing to make improvements.

I also have a simillar criticism as to NJ's lawsuit. I think the argument that NJ should get some of the congestion pricing to improve NJT and PATH is completely fair, but the Governor's current stance is that NJ should get congestion money to build more roads, roads which won't help people to get into Manhattan anyways.

[SoSpectacular]

Like anything that gets proposed in NYC nowadays, I don't expect anything to go as planned when it gets implemented. There is always going to be some form of abuse somewhere, there's is always going to be some f**kery somewhere. It is what it is at this point...

[B35 via Church]

Being frank, I don't doubt for a second that the vast majority of people that are concerned about congestion pricing, would give much of a damn about how that money will end up being spent.... Imagine being robbed of cash by someone, to worry about where your stolen money would end up being spent - over having your money being stolen in the first place....

The immediate concern, which should be obvious, is that this will be yet another way to siphon money out of city residents...

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 10/28/2023 at 3:02 PM, B35 via Church said:

Being frank, I don't doubt for a second that the vast majority of people that are concerned about congestion pricing, would give much of a damn about how that money will end up being spent.... Imagine being robbed of cash by someone, to worry about where your stolen money would end up being spent - over having your money being stolen in the first place....

The immediate concern, which should be obvious, is that this will be yet another way to siphon money out of city residents...

For me, if the MTA laid out clear tangible plans for what they would do with congestion pricing money that we could hold them to account for, I'd feel better. But because their plans for the money are quite vague, it leaves me suspicious.

I think this is a general problem cities with a lot of public infrastructure need to figure out long term. Public infrastructure can both decrease cost of living and improve quality of life (and is often better for Climate), but if the increased taxes and high housing costs outweigh those benefits, people are going to be less likely to move to these cities.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 10/19/2023 at 10:27 AM, SoSpectacular said:

Like anything that gets proposed in NYC nowadays, I don't expect anything to go as planned when it gets implemented. There is always going to be some form of abuse somewhere, there's is always going to be some f**kery somewhere. It is what it is at this point...

I feel like there have been a good number of non-NYC Subway projects in recent history that have gone relatively smoothly overall at a fair cost, however, most of these projects are purely local. I think the MTA being this weird agency that primarily serves NYC but being controlled by the state creates a weird dynamic that leads to these abuses. Plus, subway improvements are not always as sexy as something like a new park, but also not seen as critical as something like water and electricity, so historically subway money has frequently been diverted to other projects.

[SoSpectacular]

On 10/29/2023 at 11:41 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I feel like there have been a good number of non-NYC Subway projects in recent history that have gone relatively smoothly overall at a fair cost, however, most of these projects are purely local. I think the MTA being this weird agency that primarily serves NYC but being controlled by the state creates a weird dynamic that leads to these abuses. Plus, subway improvements are not always as sexy as something like a new park, but also not seen as critical as something like water and electricity, so historically subway money has frequently been diverted to other projects.

That's part of the reason why there's been a push to return MTA to city control... But it's been so long since the state took over that I don't think it ever will happen.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

9 hours ago, SoSpectacular said:

That's part of the reason why there's been a push to return MTA to city control... But it's been so long since the state took over that I don't think it ever will happen.

Part of what makes it complicated is MetroNorth and LIRR go beyond the city (and into another state). Maybe the best way about it would to somehow keep the MTA as some sort of loose figurehead over all of greater NYC area transit, but give most of control over the subways to NYC itself with Metro North and LIRR still being controlled by the state.

Given the subway uses a different fare medium and never shares tracks or yards with LIRR/Metro North this seems doable at face value. The main issue is political will-power but perhaps if it became more of an issue I don't see it being necessarily partisan but more "anti-establishment" vs" establishment" with support and opposition from both sides. NY does technically have a ballot initiative but it's very weak and I don't think it could really be used as a mechanism to enact this sort of change, especially since it has to be referred by the legislature. Given MTA is something most NYers interact with on a regular basis, and that's it generally disliked by the public, it could become used more seriously as a wedge issue that can't completely be ignored.

Long-term, NYC seems to be becoming a larger share of NY state, which means in the future, you might be able to have a NYC-legislative majority in the would be more proactive on seriously reforming the MTA or at least dealing with some of the concerns, and budgets being re-apportioned in favor of the city generally.

Idk a lot in politics can change over a couple decades; just imagine if you had told someone of our political circumstances today 20 years ago. No one would believe things like the right to gay marriage could become federal law (with significant bipartisan support), Roe v Wade would be overturned, Trump would be elected President, or Texas would vote to the left of Iowa federally.

[CenSin]

7 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

No one would believe

…that the standard of discourse for some politicians of a particular party would sink so low.

I just got a text message from one of them. This is the second election I’ve seen such angry verbiage about political opponents on the heels on Election Day—and on the local level (I.e, not Trump). Unhinged rambling is par for the course for them.