NYU Report: NYC Economy Suffers Without New Rail Projects

henry6 wrote:I hate to say, you caused it, you use it, so why don't you pay for it, but your comments beg the tirade

Henry6, fair enough! But, I already do pay more than my share for it. As a NJ taxpayer, I send far more of my taxes to Washington then I get back from Washington. If NY and NJ just got back something close to their fair share in federal tax contributions, they could easily pay for 5 new tunnels.

Also, the Port Authority is looking to Albany and other lcoations upstate to start mini-ports to ship goods to the rest of the country, because NY Harbor is nearing capacity. There is a regional benefit that can be spread around.

..all you have to do to your story for it to be true is insert New York City, New York City watershed along the Delaware River, and the bad feelings there are there having to jump to the city's tune while trying to eke out a living off the land!.

In other words, the problems of NYC, be it water, or highway congestion, or lack of rail capacity, fall on unsympathetic ears Upstate, expecially when the tax bill comes around. Many would like to chop NYC and vicinity off the land mass and set it out to sea!

I've heard that NYC offered to pay Canada to take upstate NY, but Canada declined.

JLo wrote:I send far more of my taxes to Washington then I get back from Washington. If NY and NJ just got back something close to their fair share in federal tax contributions, they could easily pay for 5 new tunnels.

A better way to state how much NY and NJ get back from Washington is how much they get back compared to other states. Representation for taxation is the way I personally believe it should be.

One exception to note are all the tolls collected in New York and New Jersey. Tolls are esentially double taxation and states that toll drivers should receive less federal highway funding than states that don't. Of course such structures are sometimes required to control the flow of traffic into a city and are sometimes needed to pay for expensive bridges and tunnels, yet are easy to abuse once put in place ($6 to get into the city, $8 for the Verazzano), and that's why reduced federal funding should be used as a check and balance.

IIRC, a good deal of the MTA bridges and tunnels toll funds go towards the MTA's public transit divisions (NYC/LI Bus, NYC subway/SIR, LIRR and Metro-North). Is this an implication that NJT should take over the NJTP and GSP toll system? Not necessarily, but the MTA sets an interesting precedent.

Playing games with federal funds for capital projects is not the answer. That will result (as we have already observed) in capital projects getting delayed literally for decades.

This is a perfect example of how a toll is abused. It's an implication that some are paying for rides of others. Of course the MTA does deserve federal funding (represented in proportion to taxes paid by riders) but the question becomes whether a motorist that doesn't benefit from the subway should pay more to cross a bridge to help fund the system than a fare to take a ride on the system. It's too bad they don't play games to keep the tolls in balance.

Now you are implying that all transportation should be based on an on-demand basis, instead of pre-existing to be used at convenience? If that were the case, then all roads would be dirt-paved. You are going to have to compromise and stop calling dedicated funding sources "abuses", otherwise you will grind cities to a halt.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that MTA's farebox recovery ratio is in the high-60% to mid-70% range...? That would make most people who would use transit part-time feel better. Also, would it make things better or worse to mention that trucks pay higher tolls than automobiles?

Irish Chieftain wrote:Now you are implying that all transportation should be based on an on-demand basis, instead of pre-existing to be used at convenience? If that were the case, then all roads would be dirt-paved.

Do you mean "funded" with the use of the word "based"? I'm not exactly sure what you are saying in your first statement, but I would agree that sytems deserve funding in proportion to the use they get. Most of our roads are freely available to all Americans to drive on and are worthy of funding. Of course someone's private road is not. Essentially, putting a toll on a road makes it a private one.

Irish Chieftain wrote: You are going to have to compromise and stop calling dedicated funding sources "abuses", otherwise you will grind cities to a halt.

I'm not in charge. My opinions and votes make little difference. Rather than compromising, all I can do is yeild to the dicatorship. Of course the MTA deserves some dedicated source of funding(taxes). What I call abuse is when the wrong parties are required to provide those sources of funding. As for tolls most of our cities are still free of them.

Irish Chieftain wrote: Perhaps I should have mentioned that MTA's farebox recovery ratio is in the high-60% to mid-70% range...? That would make most people who would use transit part-time feel better. Also, would it make things better or worse to mention that trucks pay higher tolls than automobiles?

I agree that no system is going to provide 100% recovery. I also agree that the MTA deserves more funding, because the trains and busses are used(and over capacity). I agree that trucks should pay more because they provide more wear and tare to the roads and more effort is required to provide security from the risks that trucks bring. Of course making them pay for something other than their use on the road is an abuse.