Not wanting to devalue their on-street parking permits, but not wanting to be accused of doing nothing, it is clear that the State Legislature is looking for a congestion pricing alternative. But the only alternative to rationing street space by price is rationing by queue; congestion will rise to the point where there are no more people who can stand it, and the rest will either use other means to travel or relocate themselves (and their businesses?) elsewhere. Once the state has decided that the only acceptable limit to congestion is congestion itself, and thus the city has no choice but to live with it, however, taking away street space, and taking other measures to reduce traffic flow, will become reasonable. Such measures wouldn’t make congestion worse, because congestion would simply be as bad at it is going to be anyway. The only difference is that the general public would get the benefit of alternative uses of the street. And how about the revenue that congestion pricing would bring? With space that tight, it becomes impossible to avoid committing traffic infractions such as blocking the box, impeding emergency vehicles, and getting stuck in bus lanes. Ruthless enforcement (you decided to drive here and didn’t want to pay? Tough!) could bring in the cash in fines, rather than fees. Indeed according to a Daily News article last week, when it comes to scarce “free” on-street parking spaces in my neighborhood, this is already happening.

In case you missed it, Gotham Gazette posted an excellent article on the average earnings of workers in their 20s, both in New York City and nationally, over time here. The data show that workers in their 20s today, particularly men, even college graduates (of which there are more), earn less in cash income than they once did, both in New York City and nationally. The situation for non-cash income is even worse. As a result of two tier union contracts and other two-tier personnel policies, my generation was the first to not receive defined benefit pensions. But young people today are unlikely to even receive health insurance, as businesses increasingly hire them as “independent contractors” to deny health insurance to them while providing it to existing employees from prior generations. To this, add the higher student loan amounts today’s graduates are burdened by, generated in part by excessive cost inflation in higher education (which presumably provides more income for more people). Forget the fear that the next generation will not be as well off; it has already happened. And public policies, attentive to the wants of senior citizens to the virtual exclusion of all else, particularly in New York State, pile debts and other burdens on to the future, for those 20-somthings to someday pay. In yet another shot in the generational war, state and local governments are refusing to allow people to know how large those burdens will be.

In case you missed it, Gotham Gazette posted an excellent article on the average earnings of workers in their 20s, both in New York City and nationally, over time here. The data show that workers in their 20s today, particularly men, even college graduates (of which there are more), earn less in cash income than they once did, both in New York City and nationally. The situation for non-cash income is even worse. As a result of two tier union contracts and other two-tier personnel policies, my generation was the first to not receive defined benefit pensions. But young people today are unlikely to even receive health insurance, as businesses increasingly hire them as “independent contractors” to deny health insurance to them while providing it to existing employees from prior generations. To this, add the higher student loan amounts today’s graduates are burdened by, generated in part by excessive cost inflation in higher education (which presumably provides more income for more people). Forget the fear that the next generation will not be as well off; it has already happened. And public policies, attentive to the wants of senior citizens to the virtual exclusion of all else, particularly in New York State, pile debts and other burdens on to the future, for those 20-somthings to someday pay. In yet another shot in the generational war, state and local governments are refusing to allow people to know how large those burdens will be.

New York’s MTA recently announced, to great acclaim, that it would “save the fare” for another year, continuing a political game that has gone on as long as there has been a subway system in New York. The long-term results of that game have been terrible. To prevent increases, money has been borrowed and maintenance deferred, until a crisis point is reached and the fare goes up anyway – by a massive amount, generally in a recession when people can least afford it. In the city’s history the typical fare increases have been 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%, even 100% (from five cents to ten cents). It is only during the 1984 to 1994 period that somewhat smaller increases – of 11% or less – were the norm. Deferred fare increases have been paid back with interest, one reason the pay-per-ride subway fare has in the end risen faster than inflation – by 45% from 1904 to today in real dollars. (see attached chart). Think about it – all those populist heroes defending the working people and middle class by fighting fare increases over all the years delivered a 45% increase in the cost of a subway ride adjusted for inflation over a century! There really is a sucker born every minute. In contrast U.S. postage stamps and inflation have gone up by about the same amount over the past century. Postage stamp increases have been smaller, with the latest at just two cents (5.1%), but more frequent – and generally not subject to grandstanding my members of Congress. In New York the game goes on, but according to the blog DCist, a transit board member in of all places Washington D.C. has proposed ending the game there once and for all.

New York’s MTA recently announced, to great acclaim, that it would “save the fare” for another year, continuing a political game that has gone on as long as there has been a subway system in New York. The long-term results of that game have been terrible. To prevent increases, money has been borrowed and maintenance deferred, until a crisis point is reached and the fare goes up anyway – by a massive amount, generally in a recession when people can least afford it. In the city’s history the typical fare increases have been 20%, 25%, 33%, 50%, even 100% (from five cents to ten cents). It is only during the 1984 to 1994 period that somewhat smaller increases – of 11% or less – were the norm. Deferred fare increases have been paid back with interest, one reason the pay-per-ride subway fare has in the end risen faster than inflation – by 45% from 1904 to today in real dollars. (see attached chart). Think about it – all those populist heroes defending the working people and middle class by fighting fare increases over all the years delivered a 45% increase in the cost of a subway ride adjusted for inflation over a century! There really is a sucker born every minute. In contrast U.S. postage stamps and inflation have gone up by about the same amount over the past century. Postage stamp increases have been smaller, with the latest at just two cents (5.1%), but more frequent – and generally not subject to grandstanding my members of Congress. In New York the game goes on, but according to the blog DCist, a transit board member in of all places Washington D.C. has proposed ending the game there once and for all.