POINT OF VIEW

Funding mass transit goes beyond congestion pricing

Posted

(re: “Want to drive? Pay the fare,” March 8)

We face a real crisis with mass transit in New York City — not only subways, but bus service as well. And it will take a significant infusion of additional dollars to address it.

I have said repeatedly that all options should be on the table to raise funds.

Unfortunately, there are some who claim there is only one possible solution: congestion pricing. They seem to believe that other proposals (including a millionaire’s tax, a commuter tax, earmarking a portion of state income tax for transportation purposes, etc.) should all be rejected out of hand. They claim that we need to not only raise revenue, but also focus on traffic congestion in a select part of Manhattan.

While they cite the experience in other places such as London, they ignore the facts. 

According to a recent New York Times article, congestion in London decreased in the short term, but is now worse than before their congestion pricing scheme was implemented in 2003 — and their fee has more than doubled.

The Riverdale Press editorial of March 8 suggests that if we had congestion pricing, then people could either give up their cars or not drive into Manhattan, and only drive (and pollute) in the Bronx. Much of the Bronx is inconvenient or inaccessible by mass transit, with no cross-borough subway, and buses are slower than almost anywhere else in the country.

Many people do not have the option to give up their cars, and having the Bronx turn into a parking lot for Manhattan is not a desirable outcome.

Yes, congestion pricing should be on the table for discussion, but so should other options. The vast majority of prominent supporters of the Move NY Plan are from Manhattan, or certain areas of Brooklyn. Even Uber, the very company that is largely responsible for the increase in congestion over recent years, endorses it. 

We need to make sure that everybody’s voice is heard in this important conversation, not just the people who would benefit from this one particular scheme.

While I don’t doubt the sincerity of most of these advocates, I do question the numbers they have put forth. They claim that the Move NY Plan would generate $1.5 billion in revenue annually. 

Similarly, a few years ago, the taxpayers were sold a bill of goods on how much money additional gambling in New York would generate. Lo and behold, their numbers were way off. Furthermore, if congestion pricing is implemented, and the desired outcome of reduced vehicular traffic is achieved, then someday we could see the congestion fee doubled to maintain the needed revenue for mass transit.

Many supporters of congestion pricing like to tout its progressive approach, saying that it is effectively a tax on the rich because they people who drive into the CBD have more money than everybody else. Are some people who drive to work in Manhattan rich? Sure. But there are many people who drive their grandparents to medical appointments at some of New York’s finest hospitals, who have to drive because our mass transit system isn’t fully ADA compliant, or who just want to go to the theater for their one night out a month with family and friends.

Everyone agrees we need mass transit dollars. Agreement on how won’t be easy, but hopefully it will happen by the March 31 New York state budget deadline.

Overly simplified and divisive opinion pieces aren’t helpful. What is helpful is discussing any and all long-term, consistent and substantial sources of revenue, such as lifting the cap on the gas tax, implementing real estate value capture, adding new vehicle registration surcharges, and charging the for-hire vehicle corporations that clog our streets.

Our solution needs to be broad-based and truly progressive, ensuring that everyone is paying their fair share toward a modern and adequately maintained transit system.

The congestion pricing proposals currently being discussed do not accomplish this goal.

The author is the Assembly representative for the 81st District, which includes Riverdale, Kingsbridge, Van Cortlandt Village, Kingsbridge Heights, Marble Hill, Norwood, Woodlawn and Wakefield.

Jeffrey Dinowitz,

Comments