OYSTERBAY-RYE BRIDGE - DISCOUNT FOR TRAVEL UP 684
CPAMARV
I-287 up to the Westchester I-287 / I-95 interchange is the inability of both
287cross westchester expressway/the tapanzee bridge and 95 to handle the
increased traffic. To handle this problem:
*there s/b a double toll plaza system (using Ezpass to minimize the congestion)
where by vehicle are charged an initial toll of say $6 for crossing but upon
reaching the I-84 interchange on i-684 vehicles electing to go through a
second set of toll booths who had crossed the sound crossing within the
previous ie .5 hours would have $2 of their toll charged back. this would
encourage use of the capacity I-84 corrider (which also has room for
expansion).
*For southbound traffic, a potential credit against the more southerly toll
would be given by passing through the northerly toll plaza.
*As LI is more in favor (and need) of the bridge than Westchester, give
Westchester resident a discount on the bridge (similar to the Staten Island
resident discount on the Verzano Narrows Bridge)
*To further mitigate the negative effects on the quality of life that local
users of the Cross Westchester Expressway users would suffer (by virtue of
congestion by those not discouraged by the non-discounted price of traveling
from the west shore of the hudson to the Sound Crossing), part of the higher
tool should go toward subsidizeing mass transit - possibly light rail in this
corrider)
In short the Oysterbay-rye sound crossing should be built with adquate
mechanisms to channel much of the traffic along the I-84 coorider instead of
the 287/tapanzee and I95 corridors.
David J. Greenberger
> *there s/b a double toll plaza system (using Ezpass to minimize the
> congestion) where by vehicle are charged an initial toll of say $6 for
> crossing but upon reaching the I-84 interchange on i-684 vehicles
> electing to go through a second set of toll booths who had crossed the
> sound crossing within the previous ie .5 hours would have $2 of their
> toll charged back. this would encourage use of the capacity I-84
> corrider (which also has room for expansion).
You're suggesting that traffic pay *less* of a toll for using *more*
road?
Let me propose a revolutionary idea:
Set the toll at whatever is necessary for the bridge to pay for itself.
Long Islanders painted themselves into a corner when they moved in
droves to a long island that's connected to the rest of the world only
via the most densely populated city in the country. Now they want
everyone else to get them out of their mess. Why should the entire
state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
problem they didn't create?
--
David J. Greenberger
CPAMARV
>Set the toll at whatever is necessary for the bridge to pay for itself.
>Why should the entire
>state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
>themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
>problem they didn't create?
>--
>
Not only is my suggestion that users only pay for the the bridge, I am also
recognizing the costs in terms of quality of life to local westcher residents
once the bridge and its traffic reaches mainland. As such I am trying to steer
this traffic away from already clogged arteries through fee inducements, and
offering monetary compansation/trasit improvements for the traffic that will
be adding to the burden on 287.
Peter Rosa
"David J. Greenberger" wrote:
> Long Islanders painted themselves into a corner when they moved in
> droves to a long island that's connected to the rest of the world only
> via the most densely populated city in the country. Now they want
> everyone else to get them out of their mess. Why should the entire
> state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
> themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
> problem they didn't create?
There are many reasons why people might have moved to Long Island - not to
mention the fact that many people who live there were born there. You're
talking about 2.7 million people, after all. In addition, there probably
are more than a few people who moved to Long Island thinking they wouldn't
have to leave on a daily or regular basis, but as a result of job changes or
workplace relocations found that to be no longer the case. Stereotyping all
Long Islanders as "people who got what they deserve" is unfair.
--
Peter Rosa
pros...@yahoo.com
R32...@aol.com
Founder,
Official Ronkonkoma Haters Association
Ralph Herman
"David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:wk1ysi4...@uiuc.edu...
Yeah David, people on LI will say the same thing about the Second Ave
Subway... why did NYC allow such high density on the East Side, and why
should the rest of NYS pay for a new subway line.
LI is part of NYS. It works both ways. The only difference is the LI Sound
Bridge can pay for itself.
Ralph
AKirsc5653
For one thing, the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge was something one could have
reasonably expected to have been built a LONG time ago. There is no reason LI
intrisically HAS to be isolated from the rest of NY State and the US. I blame
the North Shore residents who blocked it. Anyway, the fact is, Long Island has
4 million people, who (deserving or not!) NEED another way off the island. I
want that crossing!
(Of course now I live in Queens, but my heart is still largely in Levittown)
:-) Andrew
Michael G. Koerner
Isn't Queens actually STILL a part of 'Long Island'?
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Regards,
Michael G. Koerner
Appleton, WI
***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return
address to reply. ***NOTICE***
____________________________________________________________________________
David J. Greenberger
> "David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:wk1ysi4...@uiuc.edu...
> > You're suggesting that traffic pay *less* of a toll for using *more*
> > road?
> >
> > Let me propose a revolutionary idea:
> > Set the toll at whatever is necessary for the bridge to pay for itself.
> >
> > Long Islanders painted themselves into a corner when they moved in
> > droves to a long island that's connected to the rest of the world only
> > via the most densely populated city in the country. Now they want
> > everyone else to get them out of their mess. Why should the entire
> > state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
> > themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
> > problem they didn't create?
>
> Yeah David, people on LI will say the same thing about the Second Ave
> Subway... why did NYC allow such high density on the East Side, and why
> should the rest of NYS pay for a new subway line.
Uh, the Second Avenue subway was proposed over 70 years ago. At the
time there was an existing line there, only it was elevated; that line
was later torn down with the expectation that it would soon be replaced
by a new subway.
We're still waiting. In the meantime, many other public works projects,
including nearly all of NYC's highways, have been built.
Was the need for a Sound bridge recognized before 1930? Was an existing
Sound bridge removed with the promise that it would soon be replaced?
> LI is part of NYS. It works both ways. The only difference is the LI
> Sound Bridge can pay for itself.
Then why don't you go out and build it yourself? If it pays for itself
entirely, I have no objections. Ideally, I'd like to see every piece of
the transportation system -- bridges, tunnels, highways, local streets,
parking spaces, subways, commuter rail -- pay for itself. (As a
Manhattan resident with a car, I'd undoubtedly come out behind with such
a scheme, but there's really no reason I should be provided with free
storage for my car and essentially free run of the streets in an area
with exceptionally high real estate values.) I assure you, if each of
us paid precisely the cost of the facilities we actually used (including
environmental costs and the like), the Second Avenue subway would be in
operation soon.
--
David J. Greenberger
David J. Greenberger
> "David J. Greenberger" wrote:
>
> > Long Islanders painted themselves into a corner when they moved in
> > droves to a long island that's connected to the rest of the world only
> > via the most densely populated city in the country. Now they want
> > everyone else to get them out of their mess. Why should the entire
> > state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
> > themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
> > problem they didn't create?
>
> There are many reasons why people might have moved to Long Island -
Who said there weren't many reasons?
> not to mention the fact that many people who live there were born
> there.
If they find Long Island's disconnectedness a hassle, who's stopping
them from moving somewhere more convenient?
> You're talking about 2.7 million people, after all.
That's the problem.
> In addition, there probably are more than a few people who moved to
> Long Island thinking they wouldn't have to leave on a daily or regular
> basis, but as a result of job changes or workplace relocations found
> that to be no longer the case.
Most people are, unfortunately, not in a position to assume that their
current work conditions will never change. It may be reasonable to
expect that one probably won't have to travel far to work when
establishing a new residence and/or job, but those expectations will
occasionally be violated. Unless these people have insurance policies
with the state to cover the losses if this sort incurred by job changes,
why should the entire state be expected to bail them out?
> Stereotyping all Long Islanders as "people who got what they deserve"
> is unfair.
I disagree. Blunt, certainly, but I don't think it's unfair.
--
David J. Greenberger
David J. Greenberger
> [David wrote:]
> >Let me propose a revolutionary idea:
> >Set the toll at whatever is necessary for the bridge to pay for itself.
>
> >Why should the entire
> >state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
> >themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
> >problem they didn't create?
>
> Not only is my suggestion that users only pay for the the bridge, I am
> also recognizing the costs in terms of quality of life to local
> westcher residents once the bridge and its traffic reaches
> mainland. As such I am trying to steer this traffic away from already
> clogged arteries through fee inducements, and offering monetary
> compansation/trasit improvements for the traffic that will be adding
> to the burden on 287.
I apologize for misrepresenting your proposal.
I do think it would be more appropriate to steer traffic off of busy
roads by charging them for the use of those roads than by paying them to
use other roads. Your assumption (IINM) is that anyone who doesn't
continue to I-84 is contributing to congestion on I-287. What about
people who are simply going to Rye, or to other points along I-684?
They're not contributing to congestion on either yet they're stuck
paying the extra fee for using I-287. Why not give everyone the
discount and charge a $2 toll on I-287 itself?
--
David J. Greenberger
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Ralph Herman" <rlah...@flashcom.net> writes:
> > "David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > > droves to a long island that's connected to the rest of the world only
> > > via the most densely populated city in the country. Now they want
> > > everyone else to get them out of their mess. Why should the entire
> > > state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
> > > themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
> > > problem they didn't create?
> >
> > Yeah David, people on LI will say the same thing about the Second Ave
> > Subway... why did NYC allow such high density on the East Side, and why
> > should the rest of NYS pay for a new subway line.
>
> Uh, the Second Avenue subway was proposed over 70 years ago. At the
> time there was an existing line there, only it was elevated; that line
> was later torn down with the expectation that it would soon be replaced
> by a new subway.
>
> We're still waiting. In the meantime, many other public works projects,
> including nearly all of NYC's highways, have been built.
How many subway lines does Manhattan have?
How many Long Island Sound crossings are there?
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
David Jensen
"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in message
news:3A9F223C...@dataex.com...
> AKirsc5653 wrote:
> >
> > As one who grew up on Long Island, I hate when people say things like
that!
> > For one thing, the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge was something one could have
> > reasonably expected to have been built a LONG time ago. There is no
reason LI
> > intrisically HAS to be isolated from the rest of NY State and the US. I
blame
> > the North Shore residents who blocked it. Anyway, the fact is, Long
Island has
> > 4 million people, who (deserving or not!) NEED another way off the
island. I
> > want that crossing!
> >
> > (Of course now I live in Queens, but my heart is still largely in
Levittown)
>
> Isn't Queens actually STILL a part of 'Long Island'?
Of course, but this is New Yorkers we're talking about. Nobody in NYC lives
on Long Island, despite the fact that half of the people who live in NYC
live on the island called Long Island, too. NYC, and Brooklyn before that,
has always provided most of the population of the island called Long Island.
Sure, Queens and Brooklyn are on an island called Long Island, but Long
Island, the place referred to, almost always refers only to the suburbs in
the other two counties on Long Island.
CPAMARV
>
There is a wine (kesser) which on the bottle says that it is bottled on the
west end of L.I. --- that happens to be brooklyn!
David J. Greenberger
> How many subway lines does Manhattan have?
>
> How many Long Island Sound crossings are there?
Uh, who cares?
Look at a map if you're curious, but I'm not sure what this has to do
with the discussion at hand.
--
David J. Greenberger
taking it to the limit
>
>Look at a map if you're curious, but I'm not sure what this has to do
>with the discussion at hand.
David, I thought this had to do with the "2nd Avenue vs Oyster Bay/Rye" portion
of this thread.
Chris Sampang
In The SF Bay Area
==================
"On a dark desert highway..." - The Eagles
==================
Freeways of San Francisco - http://sffwy.cjb.com
Fictional Celebrity Jeopardy Skits - http://connery.cjb.com
Scott M. Kozel
I though that this thread was about a potential Long Island Sound
crossing between Oyster Bay NY and Rye NY.
I was basically taking notice of a notion being advanced that Long
Island citizens didn't really deserve a Long Island Sound crossing, that
it was somehow their "fault" for being on Long Island in the first
place.
Peter Rosa
"David J. Greenberger" wrote:
> Peter Rosa <PR...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> > "David J. Greenberger" wrote:
> >
> > > Long Islanders painted themselves into a corner when they moved in
> > > droves to a long island that's connected to the rest of the world only
> > > via the most densely populated city in the country. Now they want
> > > everyone else to get them out of their mess. Why should the entire
> > > state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
> > > themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
> > > problem they didn't create?
> >
> > There are many reasons why people might have moved to Long Island -
>
> Who said there weren't many reasons?
>
> > not to mention the fact that many people who live there were born
> > there.
>
> If they find Long Island's disconnectedness a hassle, who's stopping
> them from moving somewhere more convenient?
Moving might be more of a hassle. Some people have family or other
connections that make moving impossible or difficult. Or what about people
who work on Long Island but who have to make regular trips elsewhere? They
hardly can move.
> > Stereotyping all Long Islanders as "people who got what they deserve"
> > is unfair.
>
> I disagree. Blunt, certainly, but I don't think it's unfair.
Remember what Confucious said about stones and glass houses. You didn't like
it when I stereotyped Upper West Siders as braindead limousine liberals
(which, needless to say, I did at least partially in jest). Things work both
ways.
Peter Rosa
CPAMARV wrote:
Somehow, the image of sunny vineyards stretching along Flatbush Avenue just
doesn't work for me!
Ralph Herman
> "Ralph Herman" <rlah...@flashcom.net> writes:
>
> > "David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:wk1ysi4...@uiuc.edu...
> > > You're suggesting that traffic pay *less* of a toll for using *more*
> > > road?
> > >
> > > Let me propose a revolutionary idea:
> > > Set the toll at whatever is necessary for the bridge to pay for
itself.
> > >
> > > Long Islanders painted themselves into a corner when they moved in
> > > droves to a long island that's connected to the rest of the world only
> > > via the most densely populated city in the country. Now they want
> > > everyone else to get them out of their mess. Why should the entire
> > > state -- or anyone other than the people who will actually use it
> > > themselves -- be expected to pay for a very expensive correction to a
> > > problem they didn't create?
> >
> > Yeah David, people on LI will say the same thing about the Second Ave
> > Subway... why did NYC allow such high density on the East Side, and why
> > should the rest of NYS pay for a new subway line.
>
> Uh, the Second Avenue subway was proposed over 70 years ago. At the
> time there was an existing line there, only it was elevated; that line
> was later torn down with the expectation that it would soon be replaced
> by a new subway.
Why did NYC approve all the high rise commercial and residental buildings on
the East Side before the Second Avenue Subway was completed? If the high
rises were not approved, the Lex line would not be as stressed as it is
today. Why should someone in Buffalo fund a subway line costing billions?
When I grew up on LI in the 1960's, it was assumed the tolled Sound Crossing
would be built. There was a need then, there is more of a need today.
The LI Sound Bridge has been proposed for at least 35 years, was funded, was
approved by the NYS legislature, but was stopped by the rich NIMBYs and
their friend in Connecticut, US Senator Ribicoff. And since it was to be
funded by tolls, it would not need non-users to pay for it's construction or
maintenance.
>
> We're still waiting. In the meantime, many other public works projects,
> including nearly all of NYC's highways, have been built.
Blame Abe Beame for squandering US transportation funds, not the residents
of LI.
>
> Was the need for a Sound bridge recognized before 1930? Was an existing
> Sound bridge removed with the promise that it would soon be replaced?
There was not the population density in 1930 there is today. Either on LI,
or the East Side of Manhattan.
>
> > LI is part of NYS. It works both ways. The only difference is the LI
> > Sound Bridge can pay for itself.
>
> Then why don't you go out and build it yourself?
There are several million NYS residents who would do just that today, but
unfortunately it goes across a shoreline
near the estates of some very powerful NIMBYs.
Of course, 2/3rds of the MTA bridge and tunnel toll revenues go to mass
transit (IIRC $800 Million during the past year), so I guess the LI Sound
Crossing would have paid for itself many times over.
If it pays for itself
> entirely, I have no objections. Ideally, I'd like to see every piece of
> the transportation system -- bridges, tunnels, highways, local streets,
> parking spaces, subways, commuter rail -- pay for itself. (As a
> Manhattan resident with a car, I'd undoubtedly come out behind with such
> a scheme, but there's really no reason I should be provided with free
> storage for my car and essentially free run of the streets in an area
> with exceptionally high real estate values.) I assure you, if each of
> us paid precisely the cost of the facilities we actually used (including
> environmental costs and the like), the Second Avenue subway would be in
> operation soon.
> --
Without subsides from all of NYS to keep the fares dirt cheap, the Second
Avenue Subway will still be a dream.
The whole world does not revolve around the needs of Manhattan, David. LI
residents pay more than their share.
Ralph
David J. Greenberger
> "David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:wkzof4o...@uiuc.edu...
> > "Ralph Herman" <rlah...@flashcom.net> writes:
> >
> > Uh, the Second Avenue subway was proposed over 70 years ago. At the
> > time there was an existing line there, only it was elevated; that line
> > was later torn down with the expectation that it would soon be replaced
> > by a new subway.
>
> Why did NYC approve all the high rise commercial and residental buildings on
> the East Side before the Second Avenue Subway was completed? If the high
> rises were not approved, the Lex line would not be as stressed as it is
> today. Why should someone in Buffalo fund a subway line costing billions?
That's a good question, but even before all those high rises, the East
Side managed to support two els and one subway line. Now the two els
are gone. Even without high rises, is it reasonable to expect that one
subway line to suffice?
As I said in my earlier post, I'd prefer if nobody in Buffalo had
anything to do with funding anything outside Buffalo.
> When I grew up on LI in the 1960's, it was assumed the tolled Sound Crossing
> would be built. There was a need then, there is more of a need today.
Second Avenue began its wait thirty years earlier.
> The LI Sound Bridge has been proposed for at least 35 years, was
> funded, was approved by the NYS legislature, but was stopped by the
> rich NIMBYs and their friend in Connecticut, US Senator Ribicoff. And
> since it was to be funded by tolls, it would not need non-users to pay
> for it's construction or maintenance.
I've never really understood the common perception of NIMBYs in these
parts. Say a highway is built next door to your home; should you really
be forced to simply accept the constant fumes that will invade your
house as long as you live? It seems to me that the public (i.e., the
DOT) should pay you for the reduced value of your house. And if you
still object, it simply means the DOT had undervalued its cost -- if you
had gotten the proper value, you'd be satisfied. (The DOT, of course,
might consider less intrusive places to put its road in an effort to
reduce the cost.) Once each affected party voluntarily agrees to trade
his (whatever) for cash, politicians have no business getting involved.
If this bridge was stopped by NIMBYs (rich or poor), it sounds to me
like the affected parties weren't offered sufficient compensation.
If, after accounting for costs of this sort, the bridge would still be
funded exclusively by tolls, I don't know why it hasn't been built.
Again, why don't *you* go out and build it? As long as everyone is
compensated properly for their losses, even eminent domain should be
unnecessary. Anybody can go out and build the bridge of their dreams.
> > We're still waiting. In the meantime, many other public works projects,
> > including nearly all of NYC's highways, have been built.
>
> Blame Abe Beame for squandering US transportation funds, not the residents
> of LI.
I never blamed the residents of LI for the lack of a Second Avenue
subway. You brought up that issue yourself.
> Without subsides from all of NYS to keep the fares dirt cheap, the Second
> Avenue Subway will still be a dream.
Not if every single transportation-related expense were paid for
explicitly by its users alone. The roads -- local streets, in
particular, along with the free parking on many of them -- get a free
ride.
If a city wants to provide roads to boost tourism, that should come out
of the tourism budget. If a city wants to subsidize a bus system so the
poor can get to work, that should come out of the welfare budget. But
there should be no subsidies of transportation systems for the purpose
of transportation itself.
Only by removing all subsidies will the truly efficient transportation
systems become apparent.
--
David J. Greenberger
David J. Greenberger
> CPAMARV wrote:
>
> > There is a wine (kesser) which on the bottle says that it is bottled on the
> > west end of L.I. --- that happens to be brooklyn!
>
> Somehow, the image of sunny vineyards stretching along Flatbush Avenue just
> doesn't work for me!
While we're on the topic of awfully sweet kosher wines, the low-end
bottles of Rashi claim to be from Rashi Vineyards, Brooklyn, NY.
--
David J. Greenberger
David J. Greenberger
> "David J. Greenberger" wrote:
>
> > If they find Long Island's disconnectedness a hassle, who's stopping
> > them from moving somewhere more convenient?
>
> Moving might be more of a hassle. Some people have family or other
> connections that make moving impossible or difficult. Or what about people
> who work on Long Island but who have to make regular trips elsewhere? They
> hardly can move.
Of course moving is a hassle. So is changing jobs (which would handle
your "Or what about people..." case). It's a hassle to be weighed
against the hassle of traveling off the island.
> > I disagree. Blunt, certainly, but I don't think it's unfair.
>
> Remember what Confucious said about stones and glass houses. You
> didn't like it when I stereotyped Upper West Siders as braindead
> limousine liberals (which, needless to say, I did at least partially
> in jest). Things work both ways.
Oh, my objection was not because I didn't like it -- it was because it's
simply a blatant mischaracterization. Upper West Siders pride
themselves on being a diverse bunch. Your characterization is a bit
better for Upper East Siders, although even there you'd be off the mark
by quite a bit.
--
David J. Greenberger
Ralph Herman
> "Ralph Herman" <rlhe...@speakeasy.net> writes:
>
> > "David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:wkzof4o...@uiuc.edu...
> > > "Ralph Herman" <rlah...@flashcom.net> writes:
> > >
> > > Uh, the Second Avenue subway was proposed over 70 years ago. At the
> > > time there was an existing line there, only it was elevated; that line
> > > was later torn down with the expectation that it would soon be
replaced
> > > by a new subway.
> >
> > Why did NYC approve all the high rise commercial and residental
buildings on
> > the East Side before the Second Avenue Subway was completed? If the
high
> > rises were not approved, the Lex line would not be as stressed as it is
> > today. Why should someone in Buffalo fund a subway line costing
billions?
>
> That's a good question, but even before all those high rises, the East
> Side managed to support two els and one subway line. Now the two els
> are gone. Even without high rises, is it reasonable to expect that one
> subway line to suffice?
>
> As I said in my earlier post, I'd prefer if nobody in Buffalo had
> anything to do with funding anything outside Buffalo.
But they do, andthey do havea say in whether NYS should fund an essentially
local transportation project.
>
> > When I grew up on LI in the 1960's, it was assumed the tolled Sound
Crossing
> > would be built. There was a need then, there is more of a need today.
>
> Second Avenue began its wait thirty years earlier.
Well, then, I guess they shouldn't have ripped down the els before the new
subway was built. Oh, I forgot... that pesky subway funding problem
>
> > The LI Sound Bridge has been proposed for at least 35 years, was
> > funded, was approved by the NYS legislature, but was stopped by the
> > rich NIMBYs and their friend in Connecticut, US Senator Ribicoff. And
> > since it was to be funded by tolls, it would not need non-users to pay
> > for it's construction or maintenance.
>
> I've never really understood the common perception of NIMBYs in these
> parts. Say a highway is built next door to your home; should you really
> be forced to simply accept the constant fumes that will invade your
> house as long as you live?
In a region as built up as NYC, ANY public works project is going to pass
someone's front door. People fight highways, people fight airports, and
people fight mass transit routes past their homes. You are not "forced" to
accept anything, you can move. The LIE went right through very exclusive
Old Westbury. I wish I could afford one of those houses near the LIE.
It seems to me that the public (i.e., the
> DOT) should pay you for the reduced value of your house. And if you
> still object, it simply means the DOT had undervalued its cost -- if you
> had gotten the proper value, you'd be satisfied. (The DOT, of course,
> might consider less intrusive places to put its road in an effort to
> reduce the cost.) Once each affected party voluntarily agrees to trade
> his (whatever) for cash, politicians have no business getting involved.
Fair market value is used to determine eminent domain condemnations. If you
don't like the price, fight it.
> If this bridge was stopped by NIMBYs (rich or poor), it sounds to me
> like the affected parties weren't offered sufficient compensation.
NO! The wealthy got a US Senator from Connecticut to have Congress
designate the bay adjacent to the LI beachhead a National Wildlife Refuge.
Of course, the local residents were silent about creating the NWR before the
route was selected. Gezz, what will Oyste Bay residents do if they tunnel
under the refuge?<g>
>
> If, after accounting for costs of this sort, the bridge would still be
> funded exclusively by tolls, I don't know why it hasn't been built.
Becausea few wealthy residnts can stop ANY public works project.
> Again, why don't *you* go out and build it?
I don't build bridges for a living, I let public agencies handle my road
building chores.
As long as everyone is
> compensated properly for their losses, even eminent domain should be
> unnecessary. Anybody can go out and build the bridge of their dreams.
Some people will not sell their property under any circumstances, and if
they are wealthy enough, will file lawsuit after lawsuit, and will
effectively kill any project they want stopped.
>
> > > We're still waiting. In the meantime, many other public works
projects,
> > > including nearly all of NYC's highways, have been built.
> >
> > Blame Abe Beame for squandering US transportation funds, not the
residents
> > of LI.
>
> I never blamed the residents of LI for the lack of a Second Avenue
> subway. You brought up that issue yourself.
You blame LI residents for wanting an adequate road system with the rest of
NYS. 99.9 per cent of all traffic entering/leaving Nassau/Suffolk must
pass through NYC. NYC will not expand their system. The LI Sound Bridge
will improve access for 4 million NYS residents and their remaining
commercial base.
The Fed DOT gave NYC funds for the subway construction. IMO, NYSDOT made
sure highway funds targeted for NYC were spent as authorized... constructing
highways. NYC is lucky the Feds didn't ask what happened the subway
construction funds appropriated 30 years ago.
> > Without subsides from all of NYS to keep the fares dirt cheap, the
Second
> > Avenue Subway will still be a dream.
>
> Not if every single transportation-related expense were paid for
> explicitly by its users alone. The roads -- local streets, in
> particular, along with the free parking on many of them -- get a free
> ride.
I guess you would charge pedestrians for use of all public sidewalks and
crosswalks... Charging city agencies for using public rights-of-way. BTW,
how will you collect the fees from the Postal Service?? Diplomats?? BTW,
I am all for charging for on-street parking,
>
> If a city wants to provide roads to boost tourism, that should come out
> of the tourism budget. If a city wants to subsidize a bus system so the
> poor can get to work, that should come out of the welfare budget. But
> there should be no subsidies of transportation systems for the purpose
> of transportation itself.
>
> Only by removing all subsidies will the truly efficient transportation
> systems become apparent.
A $3.50 subway fare without free transfers should start the sandhogs working
on Second Avenue. A $450 monthly ticket on the LIRR should fund the tunnel
to Grand Central Station. Unfortunately, most of the remaining large
non-governmental employers will be in NJ or CT... they already left LI
because of the transportation mess.
Ralph
Peter Rosa
"David J. Greenberger" wrote:
> Peter Rosa <PR...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> > Remember what Confucious said about stones and glass houses. You
> > didn't like it when I stereotyped Upper West Siders as braindead
> > limousine liberals (which, needless to say, I did at least partially
> > in jest). Things work both ways.
>
> Oh, my objection was not because I didn't like it -- it was because it's
> simply a blatant mischaracterization. Upper West Siders pride
> themselves on being a diverse bunch. Your characterization is a bit
> better for Upper East Siders, although even there you'd be off the mark
> by quite a bit.
Upper East Siders certainly aren't braindead limousine liberals. They might ride
in limousines, but they're not what anyone would call liberal. Of course, heh
heh, they also might be braindead ...
David J. Greenberger
> "David J. Greenberger" <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:wklmqm2...@uiuc.edu...
> > I've never really understood the common perception of NIMBYs in these
> > parts. Say a highway is built next door to your home; should you really
> > be forced to simply accept the constant fumes that will invade your
> > house as long as you live?
>
> In a region as built up as NYC, ANY public works project is going to pass
> someone's front door. People fight highways, people fight airports, and
> people fight mass transit routes past their homes. You are not "forced" to
> accept anything, you can move. The LIE went right through very exclusive
> Old Westbury. I wish I could afford one of those houses near the LIE.
Anyone negatively affected by a public works project should be
compensated. The price should be subject to negotiation. If the nearby
residents complain, obviously they weren't paid enough. On the flip
side, if they insist on too high a price, the project will be built
elsewhere.
(Yes, that means that the DOT would have to change its approach from
deciding on a route in advance to deciding on a broad range and
selecting the least costly route within that range, after determining
the prices of all of the pieces of property they would need to buy up.
Rather than a bridge along a specific route from Oyster Bay to Rye, the
DOT would release general specifications for a bridge across the Long
Island Sound, connecting to major through highways at each end. Weighing
the costs of property acquisition, construction, and maintenance against
anticipated toll inflow, the DOT would select the least expensive
option, unless net inflow would be negative, in which case the project
would have to be abandoned or partly funded by other interested parties,
like (perhaps) nearby towns.)
> It seems to me that the public (i.e., the
> > DOT) should pay you for the reduced value of your house. And if you
> > still object, it simply means the DOT had undervalued its cost -- if you
> > had gotten the proper value, you'd be satisfied. (The DOT, of course,
> > might consider less intrusive places to put its road in an effort to
> > reduce the cost.) Once each affected party voluntarily agrees to trade
> > his (whatever) for cash, politicians have no business getting involved.
>
> Fair market value is used to determine eminent domain condemnations. If you
> don't like the price, fight it.
But why should people be forced to sell their property at fair market
value? It's their property; they should be entitled to set their own
price. Can I (legally) walk into a store and buy a gallon of milk for
the fair market value of (say) $3 even if the store charges $4? No, I
can either pay the extra dollar or bring my business elsewhere.
And then there are the houses not directly in the path of the project.
If the project reduces their value (say, in increased noise or fumes),
the owners should be compensated.
> > If, after accounting for costs of this sort, the bridge would still be
> > funded exclusively by tolls, I don't know why it hasn't been built.
>
> Becausea few wealthy residnts can stop ANY public works project.
Not if the purchasing procedure is performed in the economic rather than
the political realm. The project would be stopped only if property
owners along every conceivable route were willing to sell at a price the
DOT was willing to pay.
> > Again, why don't *you* go out and build it?
>
> I don't build bridges for a living, I let public agencies handle my road
> building chores.
Why must they be public agencies?
If you don't want to built it with your own hands, you can hire a
private agency to build it for you.
> > As long as everyone is
> > compensated properly for their losses, even eminent domain should be
> > unnecessary. Anybody can go out and build the bridge of their dreams.
>
> Some people will not sell their property under any circumstances, and if
> they are wealthy enough, will file lawsuit after lawsuit, and will
> effectively kill any project they want stopped.
They're welcome to keep their property under all circumstances. Without
eminent domain, there would be no need for lawsuits unless the DOT
blatanly stole someone's property.
> > I never blamed the residents of LI for the lack of a Second Avenue
> > subway. You brought up that issue yourself.
>
> You blame LI residents for wanting an adequate road system with the rest of
> NYS. 99.9 per cent of all traffic entering/leaving Nassau/Suffolk must
> pass through NYC. NYC will not expand their system. The LI Sound Bridge
> will improve access for 4 million NYS residents and their remaining
> commercial base.
Once again, Long Island is an island; it's unreasonable to expect the
same access to the rest of the state that one would find elsewhere.
Long bridges and tunnels are very expensive.
> > Not if every single transportation-related expense were paid for
> > explicitly by its users alone. The roads -- local streets, in
> > particular, along with the free parking on many of them -- get a free
> > ride.
>
> I guess you would charge pedestrians for use of all public sidewalks
> and crosswalks...
Theoretically, yes. As a practical matter, I don't see how that would
be feasible. Much as I'd prefer direct payment per use, likely users of
the sidewalk (NYC residents, employees in NYC, tourists) would somehow
be charged based on averages (although in the case of tourists, the
tourism department might prefer to cover the charge).
> Charging city agencies for using public rights-of-way.
Of course. (Why would anyone expect the contrary?)
> BTW, how will you collect the fees from the Postal Service??
Uh, charge them? Just like the mail trucks have to pay fuel costs, now
they'd have to pay costs for the streets they use. (Don't worry. Even
with the added costs, mail delivery in NYC would still be much cheaper
than rural mail delivery.)
> Diplomats??
The Department of Foreign Affairs or somesuch.
> > Only by removing all subsidies will the truly efficient transportation
> > systems become apparent.
>
> A $3.50 subway fare without free transfers should start the sandhogs
> working on Second Avenue. A $450 monthly ticket on the LIRR should
> fund the tunnel to Grand Central Station. Unfortunately, most of the
> remaining large non-governmental employers will be in NJ or CT... they
> already left LI because of the transportation mess.
Oh, my proposal is to implement this nationwide, not only in New York.
(Unfortunately we can't implement it retroactively as of 1900.) If the
drivers on the (currently free) roads in the Tri-State Area had to
actually cover their costs, I don't think there's be much of an exodus.
(I'd also would like to see general subsidies towards rural phone
service, desert water supplies, etc. eliminated.)
Yes, a $3.50 subway fare might do the trick -- although I expect the
subway fare would be based on distance, with rides ranging from $0.25
(short off-peak rides) to $10.00 (long peak rides). But taxes would be
much lower. Anyone who makes efficient use of transportation resources
would come out ahead in this scheme.
The current approach is that everyone puts money into the pot and then
money is distributed out of the pot. Everyone who ends up with more
than he put in thinks he's found a really efficient way to live; anyone
who ends up with less complains. That's stupid. Do away with the pot
and let people cover their own expenses.
--
David J. Greenberger