NYC congestion pricing revenue jumped up in February, MTA says
congestion pricing
and talked about a new pilot program aimed at making adjustments to bus schedules in Manhattan.
It comes as the agency says it has seen improvements in travel times due to the tolling program.
The MTA held its March committee meetings and revealed that the congestion pricing tolling program is showing signs of continued success.
It reports $51.9 million was collected in February,
$3.3 million more than in January
.
When it comes to the type of vehicles that entered the congestion relief zone, 66% were passenger vehicles, 24% were taxis or for-hire vehicles, 9% were trucks, and 1% were buses and motorcycles.
In addition, the Finance Committee announced Monday that the MTA is still on track to meet its year-end goal of $500 million, adding $78 million of that money will eventually be transferred to the so-called "lock box" for use during capital projects.
Systemwide, bus speeds are up this year. In fact, the MTA has been evaluating travel times on seven routes to see if there is a need to adjust schedules due to the reduced congestion in the area. The pilot program has been in effect since mid-February.
"Four percent speed improvements and a reduction in bus bunching. Some of the largest gains have been on the M42, M50 and Q32," New York City Transit President Demetrius Crichlow said. "We have been evaluating whether removing scheduled time points will further take advantage of the reduced congestion."
Commuters in East Harlem could be closer to gaining access to the Second Avenue Subway. On Monday, the MTA announced a big step forward in the project.
CBS News New York has learned the transit agency is set to take a vote aimed at awarding a $186 million contract for a consultant to oversee the work of the extension of the subway.
Board members say it's a joint venture between two of some of the city's biggest construction management firms. A source says after this step the transit agency will then have to draft up additional contracts for digging underground and building the new stations.
This is just the latest move the MTA is making to begin work on bringing the Q train to 125th Street in East Harlem. Jamie Torres-Springer, the president of MTA construction and development, offered some insight into what makes this contract different from some of the others associated with this project.
"This contract includes a performance evaluation program, in which there will be additional payments for excellent performance, and a reduction in fee for unsatisfactory performance. There will be incentive payments for early completion of key milestones, including reaching revenue service -- the most important of milestones, and there will be liquidated damages for each day that the milestones are delivered late," Torres-Springer said.
Keep in mind, the Second Avenue Subway is funded by congestion pricing. The MTA predicts the work will cost it around $7.7 billion. The board is expected to take a vote on the matter during Wednesday's meeting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
KCMO to decide whether earnings tax goes on November ballot
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Wednesday at Kansas City City Hall, FOX4 talked to Mayor Quinton Lucas about whether the earnings tax will be decided on by voters in the city in November of 2025. 'It's not currently on the ballot. It's not currently planned for the ballot, and I think we have about two or three weeks to try to figure that out if we were to want to,' Mayor Lucas said. As Mayor Lucas alluded to, figuring that out must happen by August 26. That's the deadline if the city wants it to be on this November's ballot. The 1% earnings tax is levied on anyone who works in the city, regardless of where they live. Popular Kansas City dog bar files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after closure Mayor Lucas said a lot is going on in Jackson County over the next three months. As of Wednesday, a recall election of Democratic County Executive Frank White was planned for September 30. Tuesday, November 4, Jackson County residents will be deciding on whether they want their assessor to be elected in future elections. 'You want to think about, 'How can you run a campaign?' Mayor Lucas said. 'Can you inform people well enough in time and frankly, what issues are happening right now that you don't want to get pulled into? There is a very robust tax conversation occurring right now in Jackson County and Platte County really, and that being, you know, the majority of Kansas Citians, you may not necessarily want to have a tax chat at the same time.' Besides talking to Mayor Lucas on Wednesday, FOX4 also talked to Show-Me Institute Senior Fellow Patrick Tuohey, who's not a supporter of the earnings tax. Other municipalities around the city don't have this tax. 'Kansas City needs to understand that it is competing with the metro areas around it to draw talent, to draw population, and it's not just the earnings tax that's chasing people away. It's crime. It's schools. It's infrastructure,' Tuohey said. 'If Kansas City is serious about being competitive, it really needs to think about all these things, the earnings tax included.' Mayor Lucas disagrees with the narrative that suburban cities with their new developments are competing with his city because of things like the earnings tax. 2025 primary election results across the Kansas City metro 'You go to a job because people treat you well, because you feel like you're doing outstanding work and because you're interested in what you do, your colleagues and all that surrounds you,' Mayor Lucas continued. 'Kansas City will continue to be a place that attracts great employers because we build great communities, because we invest in downtown, the plaza, so many other areas.' The last time the earnings tax was on the ballot for voters in the city, it easily passed in April of 2021. 77% of voters said yes. Just 23% said no. As of Wednesday afternoon, the earnings tax was not on the Tuesday, August 12, Finance Committee agenda. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
A $715 billion tax cut turns into a $4.5 trillion sales job
Republicans minimized the size of their tax cuts when they pushed them through Congress, using a controversial accounting method to make most of them appear to cost the federal government nothing. But now a new mantra is emerging from lawmakers: Their tax cuts were huge. As they sell the package to voters, President Donald Trump and other Republicans are emphasizing how big the tax cuts are — often claiming, wrongly, that they are the largest in U.S. history. Implicit in the shift: Republicans are embracing the conventional budgeting 'baseline' they scorned during legislative debate because that now makes their tax cuts appear more impressive. Under the so-called current policy baseline Republicans used in Congress, their plan was projected to cost $715 billion over a decade — peanuts, in the world of tax cuts and a mere raindrop in the country's $36.8 trillion debt. But using a conventional yardstick means their tax cuts cost $4.5 trillion — not the largest ever, but sizable enough to at least be in the conversation. That has Democrats crying foul, with Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, complaining Republicans' boasts come after they used a 'budget gimmick' to 'claim that their massive tax giveaway to billionaires cost next to nothing.' Some Republicans aren't entirely comfortable with it either. 'I can't control what other people say,' said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee. He said he instead tells voters Republicans averted a $4 trillion tax increase that would have come if lawmakers hadn't extended a slew of temporary tax cuts that were slated to expire at the end of this year. It's an ironic addendum to the long-running debate in Washington over Republicans using the current policy baseline to help pass their legislation, signed into law a little more than four weeks ago. And it comes as lawmakers now turn to selling their constituents on the package, which also includes controversial cuts in Medicaid and other programs. Early polling shows the package is not popular, though most taxpayers won't begin to benefit from the tax cuts until they file their returns next spring. Many are in line for extra-large refunds because Republicans made a number of provisions, including an enlarged Child Tax Credit and a more generous deduction for state and local taxes, retroactively available for the current tax year. During congressional consideration, Senate Republicans were adamant that the correct way to tally the cost of their plan was by comparing the changes to what the government was currently doing, not what was carved into law, as budget scorekeepers normally do. So, by that light, extending current tax policies into next year should cost nothing, and not even be seen as a reduction in taxes. The only tax cuts that counted, Republicans said, were new provisions like Trump's proposals to reduce levies on tips, overtime, auto-loans and seniors, along with enhancements of existing breaks, like a $200-per-child increase in the Child Tax Credit. The tactic drastically reduced the sticker price of the plan, no small deal given concern over federal red ink. And it made it much easier for lawmakers to make many of their provisions a permanent part of the tax code. Otherwise, under the Senate's internal rules, they would have had to find a lot more pay-fors to cover the cost of making permanent breaks for business investment, research and interest expenses. But that current policy baseline now not only makes their tax cuts look less consequential, it also shrinks the anticipated benefits to their constituents. Under the conventional baseline that Republicans spurned, people making between $60,000 and $80,000 would see their taxes fall by an average 12 percent in 2027, the official Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis last week. But those people would only get a 4.2 percent cut under a current policy baseline. Nevertheless, days after Trump signed the bill into law, Senate Republicans bragged on X that they had just cut taxes by $4.3 trillion. And lawmakers are now routinely claiming to have passed the largest-ever tax cut, though with a $715 billion price tag, the legislation is not significantly bigger than tax cuts passed during the coronavirus outbreak. The more conventional $4.5 billion estimate moves the legislation up the all-time-biggest-tax-cut list, though there were still larger ones, such as Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and when Harry Truman cut wartime taxes in 1945. That hasn't deterred Republican claims to the contrary. 'We delivered the largest tax cut in American history,' Trump said recently. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called questions of which baseline Republicans should use when talking about the tax cuts with voters 'nerdy' and 'technical." 'That's a great discussion for economists — that's not necessarily a great discussion for a politician on the campaign trail,' he said. But other Republicans say they are careful to stipulate that they avoided a $4 trillion tax increase, while stopping short of claiming to have cut taxes by that much. 'I always talk about how we stopped the largest tax increase in American history — I think that's a pretty compelling argument,' said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), another tax writer. To further complicate matters, House Republicans did in fact use a conventional baseline, not a current-policy one, when they wrote their first draft of the legislation. Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said he doesn't have a problem if those GOP lawmakers tell voters they cut taxes by $4.5 trillion. The issue, he said, is when Republicans claim the tax cuts were small when they're talking about the impact on the government's debt but say they're big when talking about the benefits to voters. 'You can't jump back and forth,' said Goldwein. 'The problem is the inconsistency.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
A $715 billion tax cut turns into a $4.5 trillion sales job
Republicans minimized the size of their tax cuts when they pushed them through Congress, using a controversial accounting method to make most of them appear to cost the federal government nothing. But now a new mantra is emerging from lawmakers: Their tax cuts were huge. As they sell the package to voters, President Donald Trump and other Republicans are emphasizing how big the tax cuts are — often claiming, wrongly, that they are the largest in U.S. history. Implicit in the shift: Republicans are embracing the conventional budgeting 'baseline' they scorned during legislative debate because that now makes their tax cuts appear more impressive. Under the so-called current policy baseline Republicans used in Congress, their plan was projected to cost $715 billion over a decade — peanuts, in the world of tax cuts and a mere raindrop in the country's $36.8 trillion debt. But using a conventional yardstick means their tax cuts cost $4.5 trillion — not the largest ever, but sizable enough to at least be in the conversation. That has Democrats crying foul, with Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, complaining Republicans' boasts come after they used a 'budget gimmick' to 'claim that their massive tax giveaway to billionaires cost next to nothing.' Some Republicans aren't entirely comfortable with it either. 'I can't control what other people say,' said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee. He said he instead tells voters Republicans averted a $4 trillion tax increase that would have come if lawmakers hadn't extended a slew of temporary tax cuts that were slated to expire at the end of this year. It's an ironic addendum to the long-running debate in Washington over Republicans using the current policy baseline to help pass their legislation, signed into law a little more than four weeks ago. And it comes as lawmakers now turn to selling their constituents on the package, which also includes controversial cuts in Medicaid and other programs. Early polling shows the package is not popular, though most taxpayers won't begin to benefit from the tax cuts until they file their returns next spring. Many are in line for extra-large refunds because Republicans made a number of provisions, including an enlarged Child Tax Credit and a more generous deduction for state and local taxes, retroactively available for the current tax year. During congressional consideration, Senate Republicans were adamant that the correct way to tally the cost of their plan was by comparing the changes to what the government was currently doing, not what was carved into law, as budget scorekeepers normally do. So, by that light, extending current tax policies into next year should cost nothing, and not even be seen as a reduction in taxes. The only tax cuts that counted, Republicans said, were new provisions like Trump's proposals to reduce levies on tips, overtime, auto-loans and seniors, along with enhancements of existing breaks, like a $200-per-child increase in the Child Tax Credit. The tactic drastically reduced the sticker price of the plan, no small deal given concern over federal red ink. And it made it much easier for lawmakers to make many of their provisions a permanent part of the tax code. Otherwise, under the Senate's internal rules, they would have had to find a lot more pay-fors to cover the cost of making permanent breaks for business investment, research and interest expenses. But that current policy baseline now not only makes their tax cuts look less consequential, it also shrinks the anticipated benefits to their constituents. Under the conventional baseline that Republicans spurned, people making between $60,000 and $80,000 would see their taxes fall by an average 12 percent in 2027, the official Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis last week. But those people would only get a 4.2 percent cut under a current policy baseline. Nevertheless, days after Trump signed the bill into law, Senate Republicans bragged on X that they had just cut taxes by $4.3 trillion. And lawmakers are now routinely claiming to have passed the largest-ever tax cut, though with a $715 billion price tag, the legislation is not significantly bigger than tax cuts passed during the coronavirus outbreak. The more conventional $4.5 billion estimate moves the legislation up the all-time-biggest-tax-cut list, though there were still larger ones, such as Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and when Harry Truman cut wartime taxes in 1945. That hasn't deterred Republican claims to the contrary. 'We delivered the largest tax cut in American history,' Trump said recently. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) called questions of which baseline Republicans should use when talking about the tax cuts with voters 'nerdy' and 'technical." 'That's a great discussion for economists — that's not necessarily a great discussion for a politician on the campaign trail,' he said. But other Republicans say they are careful to stipulate that they avoided a $4 trillion tax increase, while stopping short of claiming to have cut taxes by that much. 'I always talk about how we stopped the largest tax increase in American history — I think that's a pretty compelling argument,' said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), another tax writer. To further complicate matters, House Republicans did in fact use a conventional baseline, not a current-policy one, when they wrote their first draft of the legislation. Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said he doesn't have a problem if those GOP lawmakers tell voters they cut taxes by $4.5 trillion. The issue, he said, is when Republicans claim the tax cuts were small when they're talking about the impact on the government's debt but say they're big when talking about the benefits to voters. 'You can't jump back and forth,' said Goldwein. 'The problem is the inconsistency.'
