5 ms·

Comments seem to focus on inefficiencies in the system, but I think that misses the point: the subway adds incredible value that only real-estate developers see

Comments seem to focus on inefficiencies in the system, but I think that misses the point: the subway adds incredible value that only real-estate developers see. Sure there is waste/bureaucracy/corruption in the system, but the bigger point is that the economy isn't setup for the MTA to profit from its own success. Being close to the subway increases property values massively, but none of that value sees the MTA's bottom-line or repair-fund. This was shocking to me and one that seems like an easy fix - a "subway tax" E.g.: charge a T% subway tax for any sales over $D within X meters of a subway station. Somebody smarter than me would figure out the right values for (T,D,X) and other incentives. (Maybe less if you're adding affordable housing, maybe more if you're a corporation, maybe say the funds can only be used for capital projects, ...) This encourages the MTA to add more stops and make repairs to encourage more sales close to the stops. Win-win.

rayiner 9y ago
They have these in e.g. DC: https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Value-Capture-2015.pdf https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Docume.... Besides that, MTA simply needs to raise rates. London Tube fares are quite a bit higher than MTA fares.
- ryanianian 9y ago
  Skimmed through the document. In most of the the case-studies it provides, a general-purpose tax was added to properties near transit. That is unfortunate since it means people who have owned their home for a very long time (and who thus may not see transit as a benefit) end up being forced into a tax. Raising rates affects lower-income people quite harshly, and they're usually the ones who have to take multiple forms of public transit to begin with. I don't know of many New Yorkers who have a hard time with the $2.75/ride fee for occasional trips and maybe the per-trip cost alone could be increased substantially, but if you're buying a monthly pass, the current $117/month already feels like a lot of money, even if you consider the savings versus alternatives.
raiflip 9y ago
This is a great point, but also if the MTA builds a subway which increases land value, then the city will get an increase in property tax as the property value has increased, thereby effectively getting increased tax revenue from the subway. Nonetheless the point you make is valid, and I think either there needs to be a separate specific property tax linked to the subway increasing value, or a portion of the property tax increase from a stop being built needs to be earmarked for the subway. Probably the former.
- ryanianian 9y ago
  Agreed. What I dislike about using general-purpose property-taxes is that everyone pays them, not just those close to the subway, and not just those buying new homes at $$$ market-rates. Long-time property-owners who bought in the 60s can see huge property-tax bills that sometimes exceed original-purchase-price on a yearly basis. Exclusively targeting those who (1) buy at recent market rates and (2) are within a "favorable" distance to a subway stop seems (to me) to be a fair way to extract some of the benefit provided by the subway to help pay for it.

rayiner 9y ago

They have these in e.g. DC: https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Value-Capture-2015.pdf https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Docume.... Besides that, MTA simply needs to raise rates. London Tube fares are quite a bit higher than MTA fares.

ryanianian 9y ago
Skimmed through the document. In most of the the case-studies it provides, a general-purpose tax was added to properties near transit. That is unfortunate since it means people who have owned their home for a very long time (and who thus may not see transit as a benefit) end up being forced into a tax. Raising rates affects lower-income people quite harshly, and they're usually the ones who have to take multiple forms of public transit to begin with. I don't know of many New Yorkers who have a hard time with the $2.75/ride fee for occasional trips and maybe the per-trip cost alone could be increased substantially, but if you're buying a monthly pass, the current $117/month already feels like a lot of money, even if you consider the savings versus alternatives.

raiflip 9y ago

This is a great point, but also if the MTA builds a subway which increases land value, then the city will get an increase in property tax as the property value has increased, thereby effectively getting increased tax revenue from the subway. Nonetheless the point you make is valid, and I think either there needs to be a separate specific property tax linked to the subway increasing value, or a portion of the property tax increase from a stop being built needs to be earmarked for the subway. Probably the former.

ryanianian 9y ago
Agreed. What I dislike about using general-purpose property-taxes is that everyone pays them, not just those close to the subway, and not just those buying new homes at $$$ market-rates. Long-time property-owners who bought in the 60s can see huge property-tax bills that sometimes exceed original-purchase-price on a yearly basis. Exclusively targeting those who (1) buy at recent market rates and (2) are within a "favorable" distance to a subway stop seems (to me) to be a fair way to extract some of the benefit provided by the subway to help pay for it.