Yesterday NYC Comptroller Bill Thompson announced a plan (available here) to raise over $1 billion to fund the MTA — more than enough to halt planned service cuts — by increasing vehicle registration fees in part of New York State.
Under the plan, vehicles in the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District (New York City, Long Island, and Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Westchester, and Rockland Counties) would be subject to an annual fee of $100 for vehicles weighing 2,300 pounds or less. The fee would increase by 9 cents a pound for vehicles over 2,300 pounds, incentivizing lighter (and generally more fuel-efficient) vehicles.
This is a sensible plan because it recognizes that many non-transit riders benefit from transit and should contribute to the system. As Transportation Alternatives’ Paul White said in a press statement, “What rebuilt the subways 25 years ago was the pact that everyone who benefits from transit–including drivers–pays into the system. … Straphangers can’t shoulder the entire burden in these tough times alone.”
Thompson said the program could complement a residential parking permit program that would allow only NYC-registered vehicles to park in certain areas and that many elected officials support. Such a program would make it easier for residents to find parking and dissuade out-of-state registration of vehicles to avoid the proposed fee. He also said that combining his plan with a reinstated commuter tax would raise $1.8 billion annually.
[…] MTR: Thompson’s Car-Registration-Fees-for-Transit Proposal a Sensible Idea […]
Based on your summary this is NOT a sensible plan. So grandma who drives her car 500 miles a year pays the same annual fee as grandson who drives his car 25,000 miles a year assuming their cars weigh the same?
Wouldn’t you think that grandson benefits from transit A LOT more than grandma?
More sensible is something that taxes by usage: increase tolls, congestion pricing, gas tax, etc. Grandma doesn’t use, grandma doesn’t pay.
Times online December 14, 2008
DO THEY EVEN WORK?
Evidence from London shows few benefits. Earlier this year figures emerged showing that in some parts of London traffic speeds had declined since the congestion charge was introduced. Traffic moved along the Strand, a main east-west corridor, at just 1.8mph. Businesses also said they had suffered after the introduction of the zone. In Manchester, firms ranging from Kellogg’s to Unilever joined the campaign against the new charge. “People don’t like the surveillance involved either,” Roberts, left, said. “The admin costs are huge as well and the environmental benefits are unclear.” Durham, which introduced a scheme in October 2002, has seen an 85% drop in traffic, but the zone covers only a tiny area of the city centre.