The Public Says No Congestion Tax
Ruben
Again and again public opinion polls make clear that New Yorkers consider the congestion price scheme a regressive tax and want to hear about any and all alternatives before getting hit with another expense they cannot afford.
The members of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission owe New Yorkers a fiduciary duty to examine all traffic mitigation alternatives and to give each and every proposal a fair and proper hearing.
The most recent poll, the November 19, 2007 Q-Poll from Quinnipiac University, found that opposition to the “congestion pricing plan has grown to 61-33% among New York City voters.”
In this latest survey, voters in Queens oppose congestion pricing, 65-29%; in Brooklyn 63-31%; in Staten Island 63-32%; in The Bronx 70-24%. This time even Manhattanites rejected the congestion tax, 47-46%.
See news coverage on the November 19 Q-Poll:See news coverage on the November 19 Q-Poll:
In, New poll shows 61% of city voters opposed to congestion pricing, The Daily News reports: “Opposition to Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan is growing among city voters - even those in Manhattan who would expect to gain the most from having less traffic.....Although voters in the other boroughs have always been solidly against the mayor's plan, 47% of Manhattan voters are against it - up from 36% in August......Congestion pricing support fell even if the money it raised would help forestall MTA fare hikes, the poll found.”
(November 20, 2007) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/20/2007-11-20_new_poll_shows_61_of_city_voters_opposed-1.html
“Overall, only 33% of New York City voters support the plan, the poll shows,” reported the New York Sun in, Poll: Support For Congestion Pricing Falling, which also noted the marked increase in opposition to the congestion tax among Manhattan voter: “Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan is facing growing opposition, with more Manhattan voters opposing than supporting it, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday.” It explained: “The proportion of registered voters opposing congestion pricing rose to 47% from 36% in August, while those supporting the plan fell to 46% from 54%.”
(November 20, 2007) http://www.nysun.com/article/66706
“With the debate over a transit fare hike heating up, opposition to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan is spreading to Manhattan, where residents had been solidly behind the proposal, according to a new poll,” reports Newsday. “In barely three months, the number of Manhattan residents who support Bloomberg's plan to charge motorists to enter the borough dropped from 54 percent in August to 46 percent this month, a Quinnipiac University poll found.”
(November 20, 2007) http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nycong205468933nov20,0,938338.story
New York One News reports: “It appears fewer New Yorkers are supporting Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal.” The report, Poll: Fewer New Yorkers Supporting Congestion Pricing, notes, “According to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Monday, 61 percent of New York City voters are now against the plan to charge drivers to enter Midtown Manhattan during certain peak hours. That number is up four percent from August and nine percent from July.”
(November 20, 2007) http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=75768
“Today's Q poll finds that Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan continues has fallen further out of favor among New York City voters – even those in Manhattan, who used to support the pay-to-drive proposal,” reports Liz Benjamin in,Q Poll: ........ Congestion Pricing, in The Daily Politics blog hosted by the Daily News.
(November 19, 2007) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2007/11/q-poll-approval-down-for-kelly.html
“Support for congestion pricing is falling – even among Manhattan voters, who among all city residents have been the staunchest supporters of the proposed traffic fees – according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this morning,” according to the The New York Times' Sewell Chan in Is Manhattan Turning Against Congestion Pricing?
(November 20, 2007) http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/is-manhattan-turning-against-congestion-pricing/
“Some 61 percent of New Yorkers are now against Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to charge drivers to enter Midtown Manhattan during peak hours, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.” In Poll: fewer New Yorkers support mayor's congestion pricing proposal, Xinhua News Agency's China View English Language Internet News site also reports, “The number is up 4 percent from August and 9 percent from July......The biggest drop in support is in Manhattan, where only 46 percent support the plan, dropping sharply from 54 percent in August.” (November 20, 2007) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/20/content_7108066.htm
From the Gothamist: “Remember when all anyone could talk about was congestion pricing? Well, now that the city is officially in holiday gridlock mode, Quinnipiac University released a new poll showing growing opposition to congestion pricing, with 61% of New Yorkers against the plan.” In Poll Suggests Waning Support For Congestion Pricing, it recalls: “Back in July, 52% of voters were against congestion pricing, and then that grew to 57% in August. Most notably, the number of Manhattan voters opposing congestion pricing has risen 11%, from 36% in August to 47% in November.”
(November 19, 2003) http://gothamist.com/2007/11/19/poll_suggests_w.php
The August 30, 2007 Q-Poll from Quinnipiac University, found “voters oppose congestion pricing 57-36%.”
In this survey, voters in Queens oppose congestion pricing, 61-30%; in Brooklyn 60-34%; in Staten Island 56-39%; in The Bronx 74-21%.
See news coverage on the August 30 Q-Poll:
In Poll: Most N.Yers huff at congestion plan, The Daily News reports: “New Yorkers admit snarled traffic is a big problem - but they're not ready to pay an $8 fee to unclog the streets, according to a new poll released yesterday.”
(August 31, 2007) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/08/31/2007-08-31_poll_most_nyers_huff_at_congestion_plan-3.html
From The New York Times’ City Room: Poll: Opposition to Congestion Pricing Is Growing: “Opposition to congestion pricing, far from ebbing, may actually be on the rise, according to a new poll released this morning by Quinnipiac University.”
(August 30, 2007) http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/poll-opposition-to-congestion-pricing-is-growing/#more-752August
BRONX JEER FOR TRAFFIC FEE reads the New York Post headline with this lead sentence: “Opposition to congestion pricing has increased over the last month, and is fiercest in The Bronx, according to a poll released yesterday.”
(August 31, 2007) http://www.nypost.com/seven/08312007/news/regionalnews/bronx_jeer_for_traffic_fee.htm
In Majority of New Yorkers Oppose Pricing Plan, The New York Sun reports: “Opposition to Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal is growing, even as the city has qualified for $354 million of federal funds to implement a pay-to-drive system in Manhattan, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday. New York voters consider traffic congestion a serious problem, but 57% of voters oppose congestion pricing – up from 52% opposing the road fee last month. Manhattan voters still support the proposal, which would charge cars $8 to enter Manhattan south of 86th Street, by a margin of 54% to 36%. The bulk of the federal dollars that would fund transportation improvements in New York City are contingent upon implementing some sort of pricing plan.”
(August 31, 2007) http://www.nysun.com/article/61722
In Feds meddling in congestion pricing: poll, Crain’s New York Business.com reports: “A majority of New York City voters say the federal government’s promise to give the city $354 million in transit funding only if a congestion pricing plan is approved constitutes meddling, according to a new poll.
Only about $10.4 million of the total federal monies would go toward Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s traffic proposal, yet the U.S. Department of Transportation won’t give the city any of the funds if the state legislature fails to give its stamp of approval for a trial run of the congestion proposal.
Fifty-one percent of New York City voters surveyed by Quinnipiac University say the promise of federal funding with conditions is “federal meddling in a municipal decision.”
(August 30, 2007) http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/FREE/70830002/1066/newsletter01
From The Daily Politics (The Daily News): “Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler used the Q poll’s results to slam the city/state congestion pricing commission as a “sham,” given that the majority of its members are predisposed in favor of Bloomberg's proposal in spite of the fact that a majority of residents in every borough but Manhattan oppose it.”
(August 31, 2007) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2007/08/poll_position.html
From The New York Press: “A brand new Quinnipiac Poll finds once again that outer borough residents are overwhelmingly opposed to Mayor Mike Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan.” in Like Congestion Pricing? You Probably Live In Manhattan
(August 30, 2007) http://www.nypress.com/blogx/display_blog.cfm?bid=96320598
metro new york: “Do city voters want to boot Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s traffic fee plan off the island? If you ask Quinnipiac University, they do.” from Congestion pricing poll results questioned
(August 31, 2007) http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Congestion_pricing_poll_results_questioned/9862.html
From The Staten Island Advance: “I don't believe for one minute that Staten Islanders are warming up.......,” said state Sen. Diane Savino, a North Shore Democrat. “They have not bought the idea that this is the panacea that it has been sold (as).”
(August 31, 2007) http://www.silive.com/siadvance/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/118856431264350.xml&coll=1
Incredulously – maybe not – the congestion tax proponents argue members of the public lack enough information about congestion pricing to form an opinion; they argue the poll results would change. In fact, informed voters oppose congestion pricing. Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free finds the suggestion by tax advocates – that our citizens lack the capacity to know what makes sense – more than offensive but obnoxious and telling of dismissive attitude shared by many congestion tax proponents towards overtaxed New Yorkers.
Most New Yorkers know a bad deal when they see it. The more New Yorkers learn about congestion pricing, the more they see how rotten it is to tax New Yorkers to address Midtown and downtown Manhattan traffic when better ways exist.
Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free respects the public and endeavors to share information about congestion pricing, its pitfalls and the many sound alternatives. Please peruse this website and if you need more information, contact Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free at KeepN...@gmail.com for assistance.
View the latest Q-Poll at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1302.xml?ReleaseID=1121
View the August Q-Poll at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1098&What=&strArea=3;&strTime=0
Home | Media | Reports | Links | Contact
--
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
Steven M. O'Neill
>The Public Says No Congestion Tax
Why don't you ask "if we take your money and throw it down a
well, would you be in favor of that?" while you're at it?
As I pointed out recently, if you ask them about congestion
pricing with the money going to transit -- with was the ACTUAL
PLAN, a majority in every Borough supported it.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/03/13/q-poll-new-yorkers-favor-pricing-as-transit-funding-source/
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo
Steven M. O'Neill
>The Public Says No Congestion Tax
Why don't you ask "if we take your money and throw it down a
well, would you be in favor of that?" while you're at it?
As I pointed out recently, if you ask them about congestion
pricing with the money going to transit -- which was the ACTUAL
JohnAnon
> Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> >The Public Says No Congestion Tax
>
> Why don't you ask "if we take your money and throw it down a
> well, would you be in favor of that?" while you're at it?
>
> As I pointed out recently, if you ask them about congestion
> pricing with the money going to transit -- with was the ACTUAL
> PLAN, a majority in every Borough supported it.
>
> http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/03/13/q-poll-new-yorkers-favor-pricing-as-transit-funding-source/
Don't play with the brooklyn rube, nothing said is ever going to
register with him.
Bolwerk
He's just spamming now. People like that are why I don't go into the
nyc.politics group anymore.
Steven M. O'Neill
I'm just spamming now too -- to set the record straight for
future generations.
Bolwerk
Heh. Go to nyc.politics. Just a bunch of spammers spamming stupid shit
at each other. ;)
Ruben
>>The Public Says No Congestion Tax
>
> Why don't you ask "if we take your money and throw it down a
> well, would you be in favor of that?" while you're at it?
>
> As I pointed out recently, if you ask them about congestion
> pricing with the money going to transit -- which was the ACTUAL
> PLAN, a majority in every Borough supported it.
there is no difference between the tax that was proposed on the
outerboroughs and throwing it down a well.
And I already refuted the gibberish about Brooklyn wanting to be taxed to
drive in our own city with a dozen or more polls.
Ruben
Ruben
>>>> As I pointed out recently, if you ask them about congestion pricing
>>>> with the money going to transit -- with was the ACTUAL PLAN, a
>>>> majority in every Borough supported it.
You mean which not with, and that wasn't the plan and it never will be the
plan as long as the money goes to the MTA without direct cuty allocation.
It was the details of this plan that killed it. Nobody was in favor of this
plan once details were discussed.
The Public Says No Congestion Tax
Again and again public opinion polls make clear that New Yorkers consider
Home | Media |
The Straphangers call it “a raw deal,” and so should you. Tell your
State Senators, State Assembly Members and your Council Members: You do
not trust the MTA.
While you are at it, tell the elected officials who represent you that
when the MTA keeps one promise – builds a major project on time, as
planned and within budget – then maybe you will trust the MTA.
And just how are all the tens of thousands of commuters going to fit on
already overcrowded subways, buses, trains, and Staten Island ferries
while we wait decades (if not more) for new subway, bus and train lines.
UNFARE! TRANSIT FIX-UPS DERAILED
By PATRICK GALLAHUE
March 25, 2008 -- The MTA
is flashing a red signal at
$60 million in transit
improvements the agency
promised in return for fare
hikes - blaming a downturn
in the real-estate market.
The now twice-delayed
enhancements include new
and extended bus routes,
longer hours of operation
and increased service on
many subway lines.
********************
"A lot of people are going to
feel like they got a raw
deal," said Gene Russianoff, of the Straphangers Campaign.
**********************
The enhancements were expected to cost $30 million this year and $60
million annually thereafter.
***********************
See the entire store at:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03252008/news/regionalnews/unfare__transit_fix_ups_derailed_1
03418.htm
So It Goes.....
......False Promises – AFTER – they got their money
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/mta-postpones-subway-and-bus-serviceupgrades/
March 24, 2008, 3:01 pm
M.T.A. Postpones Subway and Bus Service Upgrades Planned M.T.A. service
improvements, which would have included expanded hours on the B subway
line, have been put on hold because of declining revenues. (Photo: Ángel
Franco/The New York Times)
By William Neuman
Subway and bus riders are about to feel the impact of the slowing real
estate market and Wall Street turbulence. The Metropolitan Transportation
Authority has postponed a $30 million package of service improvements that
it had promised to riders as a way to sweeten the pill of a fare increase,
which went into effect at the beginning of this month. The postponed
service upgrades included plans to add more frequent service on the G line
in Brooklyn and Queens, extending B and W service on weeknights to 11 p.m.
from the current 9:30 p.m., and shaving one or two minutes from waiting
times for evening service on the 1, 4 and 6 lines. The M.T.A. had also
said it would create a new bus line, the M13, from the Lower East Side to
East Midtown, and would extend the B71 and B77 buses from Brooklyn via the
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel into Manhattan, where they would go to South
Ferry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congestion pricing: No Salvation For the MTA When Mayor Bloomberg unveiled
his congestion pricing proposal in April, he asserted that net revenues
from congestion pricing would be used solely to fund improvements in mass
transit and other transportation infrastructure. The Mayor cited a long
list of capital projects, totaling $30.9 billion through 2030, that he
said congestion pricing would help finance. More recently, MTA
CEO/Executive Director Lee Sander has suggested that revenue from
congestion pricing could also be used to subsidize the MTA’s
rapidly-rising operating costs, thus averting an increase in subway, bus
and commuter rail fares.
Wow – billions of dollars to improve the transit system and no increase
in fares. Who in his right mind would be opposed to that? There’s one
problem, however – the numbers just don’t add up. The money generated
by congestion pricing simply isn’t enough – and it won’t be
available soon enough – to avert a significant fare increase. · In
2008, when the MTA will be facing a shortfall of $799 million, congestion
pricing will produce – nothing, because even if the legislature approved
the Mayor’s proposal tomorrow, it would take at least 18 months to two
years to put the system in place. · In 2009, when the MTA’s projected
operating deficit rises to $1.45 billion, congestion pricing might yield
$200 million in net revenues. · In 2010, the system’s first full year
in operation, congestion pricing would produce $380 million in net
revenues – and the MTA’s operating deficit is projected to reach $1.78
billion. Proponents of congestion pricing need to practice a little truth
in advertising. Enacting the Mayor’s congestion pricing proposal won’t
solve the MTA’s operating budget problems, and it won’t eliminate the
need for higher subway, bus and commuter rail fares. 1
_____________________________________________________________
No Federal Funding is Guaranteed by Passing a Congestion Tax
It is well documented that the US Department of Transportation has no
funds to grant [Source: letter to Governor Spitzer, Assembly Speaker
Silver & State Senate Majority Leader Bruno from Congressman Peter
DeFazio]. No supporter of the Congestion Tax ever disputed Congressman
Peter DeFazio, Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee's Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, who advised no
Congressionally authorized program exists to provide federal funds. The
money at best remains a request from USDOT to Congress. [see
http://www.dot.gov/ bib2008/pdf/bib2008.pdf (page 16). The agency is
soliciting applications for grants it will make IF Congress passes a
budget that includes this funding. Most grantors solicit applications to
award money they actually have in hand. Congress has the authority to make
programmatic and funding decisions that affect the future availability of
funds and the process for being awarded any money. At best any funds that
may become available, even if pre-approved, depend not on the USDOT but on
Congressional actions. Thus the City Congestion Tax scheme cannot rely on
any promises of federal money because Congress had yet to authorize the
program and any funds for it. The Federal budget fiscal year does not
begin until October 1, 2007. The recently announced USDOT “award” only
gives allocates $1.6 million outright and other funds including $10.4
million – separate grants of $5.4 million and $5 million “when needed
and available” to implement a congestion pricing scheme that the city
claims will cost $239.3 million – it may in fact cost much more –
remain CONTINGENT and at the DISCRETION of USDOT to authorize and
allocate, and more to the point the Memorandum of Understanding stated
both sources of funding are “subject to appropriation” by Congress.
[See also our report: $500 million from USDOT for congestion pricing: How
real is this deal? And is it worthwhile?
No July 16 Deadline Ever Existed
The July 16 so-called deadline came and went. It really represented a
collusion to force the State legislature to act without a full and
independent review of the congestion tax proposal, without consideration
on alternative measures to address traffic and revenue concerns. This just
proves how the federal deadline for funding was anything but firm and
clearly malleable [Source: Federal Register –
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 01jan20061800/edocket.access.
gpo.gov/2006/E6-20924.htm; July 13, 2007 New York Times Metro
Section,Skepticism in Albany About Traffic Plan Deadline ( “a state
government official with knowledge of the Washington meeting said the
Mayor himself had urged federal officials to hold firm on the July 16
deadline”). It appears that Mayor Bloomberg is the official responsible
for setting such a quick deadline on an issue that requires a thorough
discussion on all aspects of his plan including the hardships it will
cause to the working class of New York City and the surrounding suburbs.
Now, because the State Assembly stood firm, other measures should get due
consideration and there should be an open and honest debate. The public
should keep watch. Keep NYC Congestion Tax free will. This creates an
opportunity to engage all stakeholders as London did and design a plan
that works for New York City, and should not require any reliance on any
congestion tax scheme.
No Cure for Asthma
Asthma ought to be addressed. Congestion pricing will not reduce traffic,
especially where we need to make a difference, including for our children.
Greenhouse gases generated here by on-road vehicles declined by 5.6%
between 1995 and 2005, while those generated by all other sources rose by
12.8%. The City’s own data suggest that the impact of congestion pricing
on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be minimal, especially
in areas outside the proposed Manhattan congestion pricing zone. It
proposes no measures that address asthma where it impacts mosts: air
pollution hot spots including The South Bronx, East Harlem, South Jamaica,
Long Island City, and Bed-Stuy. It does nothing to address the background
pollutants found in greater concentrations along heavily trafficked
corridors in these communities, home to our most vulnerable New Yorkers
and greatest numbers of those who suffer asthma, including younger
children at risk. In the long run, it makes more sense to focus on how the
City can help accelerate the transition to cleaner cars and trucks. Mayor
Bloomberg has already begun to take some important steps in this
direction. Yellow taxis, for example, account for one-fifth of all
greenhouse gas emissions generated by on-road vehicles in New York City
– about 4 percent of total GHG emissions Citywide. Over the course of
next five years, the Mayor has proposed that the entire taxi fleet be
converted to hybrid vehicles. City officials estimate that this shift will
reduce emissions from taxis by about 50 percent – thus effecting a
reduction of 2 percent in GHG emissions Citywide. With this one measure,
the City will have achieved five times the reduction in emissions that it
says would be achieved through congestion pricing. The City itself owns
and operates about 26,000 cars, trucks, buses and other on-road vehicles.
As with the taxi fleet, the Mayor has proposed to accelerate the City’s
transition to hybrids and other types of low-emission vehicles. Completing
this transition as quickly as possible should be a priority for the City.
And while for some purposes – such as police, fire and other emergency
services – there are clearly no real substitutes for motor vehicles, the
City should also work to ensure that its own employees, to the greatest
extent possible, use mass transit for work-related travel within the City.
New York State can also accelerate the shift to low-emission vehicles by
providing incentives to private owners. The State could, for example,
provide a substantial but time-limited tax incentive to encourage
conversion of corporate fleets to cleaner technology. The State might also
explore the use of various forms of state aid – such as funding for
school transportation and reimbursement for transportation of Medicaid
patients – to provide incentives for use of low-emission vehicles. See
also our report: Asthma and congestion pricing – a closer look
The Congestion Tax is Not Required to Qualify for Federal Funding
The promise of federal money does not require the adoption of this
Congestion Tax Scheme; further it requires no plan involving congestion
fee or tolls on free East River crossings. According to the USDOT, The VPP
program permits funding of project costs to mitigate the impacts of
pricing on low-income individuals. The ITS-OTMC program can also fund
technology components of these investments. In addition, revenues from the
pricing (tolling) activities themselves may also be used to support
transit and parking capital and operations costs. Some of the other 10
discretionary programs would also support funding of parking and transit
investments.” As a general matter, planning, design, and outreach costs
can be funded. Funding may be “used to convert one or more existing free
general-purpose lanes to HOT or Express Toll Lanes, including networks of
such converted lanes....This includes networks of converted lanes. The US
DOT seeks broad, comprehensive solutions to reducing congestion. However,
there is no strict requirement that congestion pricing must be included,
nor will non-congestion pricing strategies be excluded from consideration.
The program specifically allows for the submission of any innovative
congestion reducing strategy. ”[Source: http://
www.fightgridlocknow.gov/docs/upaqa070402.htm]
This Congestion Tax Will Not Result in Any Net Traffic Reduction
The City’s own figures suggest its congestion tax scheme will produce
only a modest reduction in traffic congestion – the benefits of which
have been wildly oversold. Between 1998 and 2004 (the last year for which
data are available), the number of automobiles and trucks driven into the
Manhattan CBD each day declined by 3.4 percent, while the number of people
using mass transit to travel to the CBD rose by 10 percent. During the
last decade, mass transit ridership has increased City-wide by 36 percent,
far outpacing the growth of population and jobs during that period. The
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council forecasts that even with
continued population and job growth through 2030, congestion will be less
severe than it was in 2005. Since the number of cars entering the
Manhattan’s CBD is not rising, we need to look elsewhere for the major
causes of congestion – double-parked vehicles, blocking the box, poor
construction site management, etc. – and for practical ways to reduce
it. At the same time, many residents and businesses located in the outer
boroughs are underserved and lack convenient mass transit options.
Congestion pricing would lead 90,000 people to switch to an already
overburdened mass transit system. Many will have to travel substantial
distances to get to an overcrowded subway. The money which would be spent
building a flawed congestion pricing system would be better spent directly
on mass transit improvements. [See our report: Congestion Pricing in the
Manhattan Central Business District: Let’s Look Hard Before We Leap]
This Congestion Tax Provides Nowhere Near the Funding to Cover the Cost of
All the Promised Projects.
Congestion pricing is extraordinarily inefficient as a revenue raiser.
Proponents agree the scheme's annual operating costs would total $240
million out of $620 estimated gross revenues. People who live, work, do
business in and visit New York would be paying $2 of every $5 million
collected to the program and not on projects to improve mass transit and
clean our air. Alternative measures exist to raise revenues for mass
transit. State legislators raised various sales and mortgage recording
taxes. The Queens Civic Congress proposes a revenue-sharing tax on
non-city residents so the covered suburban counties benefit pro-rata; New
York City would keep the revenue from out of state residents. Queens Civic
Congress' innovative revenue proposal would provide 100% it collects –
and double to triple the net revenue estimated by the Congestion Tax. By
incessantly and misleadingly linking their proposal to the projected $31
billion shortfall in capital funding through 2030, and the prospect of a
20% fare hike, congestion tax supporters have sought to create the
impression that it is the key to solving the region’s transportation
capital financing problems. If charges are set at the proposed levels,
revenues from this congestion tax on businesses and people driving into or
within Midtown and Lower Manhattan would finance only a fraction of the
projected shortfall. The Independent Budget Office projects a $799 million
MTA fiscal year 2008 operating deficit, exceeding $1.45 billion in FY2009.
If the Legislature were to approve the congestion tax tomorrow, it would
produce nothing in FY2008, perhaps $200 million in FY2009, and net but
$380 million in FY2010 – when the congestion tax would be fully
operational – but the MTA’s deficit will reach $1.78 billion.
Congestion tax revenues simply aren’t enough – and would arrive too
late – to avert significant fare increases during the next two years.
And this tax scheme got linked to the fare in an effort to diffuse
opposition to the tax. See our report: Congestion pricing: No Salvation
For the MTA.
Better Ways Exist
We do not need a congestion tax to address traffic congestion on our
streets. Alternative measures exist to address congestion and traffic. We
need better enforcement of the conditions that slow our buses and traffic
in general. Traffic abatement measures include the posting of more traffic
enforcement agents to avoid “box-blocking” to ensure traffic flow, and
changing “blocking the box” from a moving to a parking violation which
allows the use of cameras and fines to discourage that traffic-congesting
activity. Other traffic measured would keep rush hour lanes and bus stops
open, as well as attack double parking, and better regulate street and
lane closings near construction sites. The City needs to end the overuse
and inappropriate use of city, state, federal and international
“permits” in no parking and restricted parking zones. Other measures
include inducements to use mass transit – lower fares, lower express bus
fares, reduced intra-city commuter railroad fares, and better bus
connections to commuter rails. Legislation proposed by Assemblyman Rory
Lancman would provide support for telecommuting. The congestion charge is
simply another tax on business in a city that already ranks among the
highest in the nation in taxes levied on its citizens.the $21 tax on
delivery and service vehicles, will inevitably be passed on to the
customers of all of the retailers, residents, restaurant operators and
night club owners in the city. See our report: Alternative Approaches to
Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District.
Home |
Ruben
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> He's just spamming now. People like that are why I don't go into the
> nyc.politics group anymore.
Sounds like a certain other poster who emits bogus citations and
excepts people to buy into his snake oil. People who drive are
incredible selfish.
Someone needs to get through to these dingbats how much the motor
vehicle costs all of us in taxes, from street repairs, traffic light
maint and power, bridge repairs, to public safety services for
motorists in trouble (police, fire, rescue).
I say put tolls back on the Brooklyn, Williamsburg, and Manhattan
bridges (they were tolled when new).
Bolwerk
> On Apr 24, 1:13 pm, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>
>> He's just spamming now. People like that are why I don't go into the
>> nyc.politics group anymore.
>
> Sounds like a certain other poster who emits bogus citations and
> excepts people to buy into his snake oil. People who drive are
> incredible selfish.
Where's Conklin when you need him? :\
> Someone needs to get through to these dingbats how much the motor
> vehicle costs all of us in taxes, from street repairs, traffic light
> maint and power, bridge repairs, to public safety services for
> motorists in trouble (police, fire, rescue).
>
> I say put tolls back on the Brooklyn, Williamsburg, and Manhattan
> bridges (they were tolled when new).
Looks like there's not much choice but to have that happen now. Pity
too. Congestion pricing would have been cheaper and less inconvenient
to city residents. :|
Alex L
<ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>
>
> And I already refuted the gibberish about Brooklyn wanting to be taxed to
> drive in our own city with a dozen or more polls.
But still haven't answered my question - why should Brooklyn and Queens
avoid being charged to drive in their own city when Staten Island
already is?
danny burstein
Why should the folk on Brooklyn and Queens
be penalized just because folk on
Staten Island allow themselves to be
ripped off in this manner?
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Steven M. O'Neill
The L.I Sound and Rockaways bridges are also inter-NYC crossings
and also have tolls. "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz explains it and
has an interesting "compromise" plan.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/
danny burstein
>The L.I Sound and Rockaways bridges are also inter-NYC crossings
>and also have tolls.
What LI Sound bridge?
> "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz explains it and
>has an interesting "compromise" plan.
>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/
And, as I've said before, an alternative suggestion to
ameliorating that Canal street truck issue is to pare back
the confiscatory toll on the VZ. That way, truckers
(who now have to pay HUGE amounts to go west on the VZ,
thus many slip north to Manhattan) could choose to
take the more direct route.
Steven M. O'Neill
>In <fusn41$pfj$1...@reader2.panix.com> ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) writes:
>
>>The L.I Sound and Rockaways bridges are also inter-NYC crossings
>>and also have tolls.
>
>What LI Sound bridge?
>
>> "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz explains it and
>>has an interesting "compromise" plan.
>
>>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/
>
>And, as I've said before, an alternative suggestion to
>ameliorating that Canal street truck issue is to pare back
>the confiscatory toll on the VZ. That way, truckers
>(who now have to pay HUGE amounts to go west on the VZ,
>thus many slip north to Manhattan) could choose to
>take the more direct route.
I guess that reducing the toll wouldn't require Federal
approval, only reversing it would? The Schwartz plan looks
pretty good to me, really. It wouldn't raise as much money
as congestion pricing though. And it would take a staggering
amount of inter-departmental negotiation between the city,
state, Port Authority, etc.
Peter T. Daniels
> In <fusn41$pf...@reader2.panix.com> ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) writes:
>
> >The L.I Sound and Rockaways bridges are also inter-NYC crossings
> >and also have tolls.
>
> What LI Sound bridge?
Where would you say the East River ends and the Long Island Sound
starts?
Steven M. O'Neill
I meant the Whitestone and the Throgs Neck. There are also the
Triborough and the HH, of course, which go over the East and
Harlem Rivers.
The junction is Hell Gate, no?
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
or Haarlem if you're Danny
Ruben
>
> But still haven't answered my question - why should Brooklyn and Queens
> avoid being charged to drive in their own city when Staten Island
> already is?
Because Brooklyn and Queens entered this union on that condition and
Staten Island did NOT.
What does this have to do with anything anyway. You have resident
discounts for the Verazanno....and to my knowledge a free ferry
...duh This is a specious point.
Ruben
> Looks like there's not much choice but to have that happen now. Pity
> too. Congestion pricing would have been cheaper and less inconvenient
> to city residents. :|
Really, you have a bil number for that in the city council?
Ruben
danny burstein
>I meant the Whitestone and the Throgs Neck.
Would you perhaps be meaning the "Throggs Neck" (note
the double "g") Bridge?
Hmm... I'm finding it spelled both ways, including
going back-and-forth in the same documents...
Steven M. O'Neill
>In <fusqjd$hi2$1...@reader2.panix.com> ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) writes:
>
>>I meant the Whitestone and the Throgs Neck.
>
>Would you perhaps be meaning the "Throggs Neck" (note
>the double "g") Bridge?
I started to put 2 g's, but I went with what Schwartz had. Or
was it Google maps?
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo
Bolwerk
> In <250420080829569169%alexl....@si.rr.com> Alex L <alexl....@si.rr.com> writes:
>
>> In article <pan.2008.04.25...@www2.mrbrklyn.com>, Ruben
>> <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>
>>> And I already refuted the gibberish about Brooklyn wanting to be taxed to
>>> drive in our own city with a dozen or more polls.
>
>> But still haven't answered my question - why should Brooklyn and Queens
>> avoid being charged to drive in their own city when Staten Island
>> already is?
>
> Why should the folk on Brooklyn and Queens
> be penalized just because folk on
> Staten Island allow themselves to be
> ripped off in this manner?
SI is ripped off by not having Subway access.
Bolwerk
It's only Ruben's delusion that this is about screwing Brooklyn and
Queens. Everybody would have been charged, whether from inside the city
or out. Cars are expensive, pollute, and too many trips have no
positive impact, while all trips have a (not necessarily net) negative
impact.
If anything, Brooklyn and Queens (particularly Queens) likely would have
been the biggest beneficiaries.
Ruben
>
> SI is ripped off by not having Subway access.
I agree. This city hasn't made a substantial investent in trasnportation
infrastructure in 4 decades, and we have to negotiate with the damn PA and
MTA over every necessary project while they hold all the marbles.
This is true with the airtran projects, the WTC rebuilding, the Airport
fees and investments, Grand Central Station improvements and investments
and shipping and docks. The whole thing is crazy. No other political
entity allows its well being be staked by so many outside organizations.
Ruben
> It's only Ruben's delusion that this is about screwing Brooklyn and
> Queens.
Really, would we need to pay go out of Brooklyn or not? Yes we would half
of every business day,
> Everybody would have been charged, whether from
inside the city
> or out. Cars are expensive, pollute, and too many trips have no
> positive impact, while all trips have a (not necessarily net) negative
> impact.
>
> If anything, Brooklyn and Queens (particularly Queens) likely would have
> been the biggest beneficiaries.
In the world of NewSpeak.
Ruben
>
> If anything, Brooklyn and Queens (particularly Queens) likely would have
> been the biggest beneficiaries.
In the Movie ther Counterfiters, the Nazi guard tells the Jews how they
should be happy when their coworker was shot in the head because he had
tuberculosis and that they should celebrate.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Really, would we need to pay go out of Brooklyn or not? Yes we would half
> of every business day,
Brooklyn and Queens are on an island. Right now they have free
crossings to get off that island (59th St, Bklyn, Manhn, Willbg
bridges). They of course can go out 100 miles for free if they want,
and many do.
Those bridges should pay the same tolls as other TBTA crossings.
Bolwerk
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:25:23 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> If anything, Brooklyn and Queens (particularly Queens) likely would have
>> been the biggest beneficiaries.
>
> In the Movie ther Counterfiters, the Nazi guard tells the Jews how they
> should be happy when their coworker was shot in the head because he had
> tuberculosis and that they should celebrate.
Godwin's law. Double points for Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Break out the band! Everyone have a shot!
Bolwerk
I don't even care about details about what pays what. The big picture
is that, as the excellent post Stephen O'Neill shared from streestblog
says, that the transportation network is just an illogical mess that
encourages ridiculous trips to avoid tolls - thereby costing more.
This, in turn, wastes more money for drivers and for the local economy.
The Rubens of the world are getting screwed harder now than they would
have under congestion charging, or a similar equalization scheme. They
just don't understand economics well enough to realize out and can't get
over the "ME-ME-ME" of the matter.
danny burstein
>>
>> Why should the folk on Brooklyn and Queens
>> be penalized just because folk on
>> Staten Island allow themselves to be
>> ripped off in this manner?
>SI is ripped off by not having Subway access
Staent Island has that subway (well, it's open air)
of its very own, thank-you-very-mcuh. It even
has its own police force. Which is more
than the main NYS subway system can claim
these days.
(Maybe someone can explain just why SIRTOA
even exists as a separate entity, and why
it's got its own police?)
Ruben
> Brooklyn and Queens are on an island. Right now they have free
> crossings to get off that island (59th St, Bklyn, Manhn, Willbg
> bridges). They of course can go out 100 miles for free if they want,
> and many do.
>
Yeah
I don't care. Brooklyn and Manhattan hae developed at the hip and
dependent on each other for over 350 years. their merger was dependent on
and and ade possible by the building of those 3 bridges out of the public
purse of both cities and then the united city. They are the tie that
binds Brooklyn to Manhattan and without them being free and well
maintained then there is no reason for the political entity known as The
City of New York.
> Those bridges should pay the same tolls as other TBTA crossings.
Only in the mind of a twisted man and stupidly jelous man who believes
that Brooklyn and Suffolk are the same place and that Manhattan needs to
segregated from the outer boroughs. Those bridges will NEVER be tolled and
if you think it's such a great idea you should run for public office on
that platform.
Ruben
Bolwerk
> In <NemdnUfrDfswjI_V...@earthlink.com> Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> writes:
>>> Why should the folk on Brooklyn and Queens
>>> be penalized just because folk on
>>> Staten Island allow themselves to be
>>> ripped off in this manner?
>
>> SI is ripped off by not having Subway access
>
> Staent Island has that subway (well, it's open air)
> of its very own, thank-you-very-mcuh. It even
> has its own police force. Which is more
> than the main NYS subway system can claim
> these days.
If you call that a Subway.
Either way, it's disconnected from the rest of the city.
> (Maybe someone can explain just why SIRTOA
> even exists as a separate entity, and why
> it's got its own police?)
It was historically a railroad. It probably needed to operate under
different union rules when the MTA took it over, for one. It's also
subject to FRA regulations, unlike the Subway.
The MTA wanted to merge it into the same operational unit as the
Subways, but the state legislature sat on it.
Ruben
Goodwin doesn't refer to movies. But you can learn something from seeing
that Movie....or reading.
Ruben
> The Rubens of the world are getting screwed harder now than they would
> have under congestion charging, or a similar equalization scheme.
Maybe but not over any scheme that would make it cost Brooklynites to pay
to cross the east river.
> They
> just don't understand economics well enough to realize out and can't get
> over the "ME-ME-ME" of the matter.
That would be US US US. Us being the citizens of NYC who elect the
officials and pay the taxes.
Ruben
Ruben
> Stephen O'Neill shared from streestblog
> says, that the transportation network is just an illogical mess that
> encourages ridiculous trips to avoid tolls - thereby costing more.
People always avoid tolls because it costs more. such is the logic of
Stephen O'Neil.
Ruben
Steven M. O'Neill
>Really, would we need to pay go out of Brooklyn or not? Yes we would half
>of every business day,
Are you welded to you car?
Steven M. O'Neill
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:15:45 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> Stephen O'Neill shared from streestblog
>> says, that the transportation network is just an illogical mess that
>> encourages ridiculous trips to avoid tolls - thereby costing more.
>
>People always avoid tolls because it costs more. such is the logic of
>Stephen O'Neil.
Cite?
Peter T. Daniels
> In <fusqjd$hi...@reader2.panix.com> ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) writes:
>
> >I meant the Whitestone and the Throgs Neck.
>
> Would you perhaps be meaning the "Throggs Neck" (note
> the double "g") Bridge?
>
> Hmm... I'm finding it spelled both ways, including
> going back-and-forth in the same documents...
The name was changed some time between 1972 and 1997 (i.e., behind my
back while I lived elsewhere).
Ruben
> Are you welded to you car?
Frankly, that's none of your business. I'll drive my car when I thinks
its necesary, not when you do, and I'll cross my local bridges likewise
and I'm not selling the the god damn MTA.
Ruben
Steven M. O'Neill
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:55:27 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
>> Are you welded to you car?
>
>Frankly, that's none of your business. I'll drive my car when I thinks
>its necesary, not when you do, and I'll cross my local bridges likewise
>and I'm not selling the the god damn MTA.
Enjoy it while you can.
Ruben
>>> Stephen O'Neill shared from streestblog
>>> says, that the transportation network is just an illogical mess that
>>> encourages ridiculous trips to avoid tolls - thereby costing more.
>>
>>People always avoid tolls because it costs more. such is the logic of
>>Stephen O'Neil.
>
> Cite?
It's not my conjecture. I was just repeating it.
Ruben
>>
>>Frankly, that's none of your business. I'll drive my car when I thinks
>>its necesary, not when you do, and I'll cross my local bridges likewise
>>and I'm not selling the the god damn MTA.
>
> Enjoy it while you can.
As long as this city exists I'll be able to enjoy it.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:55:27 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> > Are you welded to you car?
>
> Frankly, that's none of your business. I'll drive my car when I thinks
> its necesary, not when you do, and I'll cross my local bridges likewise
> and I'm not selling the the god damn MTA.
And the rest of us paying for your decadence and selfishness. No
thanks.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I don't care. Brooklyn and Manhattan hae developed at the hip and
> dependent on each other for over 350 years. their merger was dependent on
> and and ade possible by the building of those 3 bridges out of the public
> purse of both cities and then the united city.
Those bridges once had tolls, even the BB had tolls for pedestrians as
did many bridges back then.
The tolls should be brought back.
Don't like it? Then take the subway or bus or train. You gotta be
nuts to drive in Manhattan.
I know where my taxes go and I pay far more to support roads than I do
to support mass transit. It's time to turn that around.
Ruben
> Frankly, that's none of your business. I'll drive my car when I thinks
>> its necesary, not when you do, and I'll cross my local bridges likewise
>> and I'm not selling the the god damn MTA.
>
> And the rest of us paying for your decadence and selfishness. No
> thanks.
The rest of **who** is paying for what **decadence** and selfishness? The
decadence to raise children in the city of New York? The Selfishness to
practice my profession in the city, while saving lives in the process?
The decadence to pay the highest taxes in the nation, and the first roads
and to pay for the water,sewage, roads, and sanitation that gifts the
entire region with one of the strongest economy's on the planet?
The decadence to prevent the Brooklyn Bridge from being used as a tool
for the MTA to use to screw me over?
Go play with your skateboard on Third Avenue, or better in front of a
BMW speeding out of the Holland tunnel....
Ruben
>
> Those bridges once had tolls, even the BB had tolls for pedestrians as
> did many bridges back then.
>
> The tolls should be brought back.
I have no idea about ever being an tolls on the Bridge but its been free
since the Union of the City and it will remain so.
>
> Don't like it? Then take the subway or bus or train. You gotta be nuts
> to drive in Manhattan.
YOU have to be nuts to drive in Manhattan between 6AM and 6PM every
working day. I not only know how to avoid traffic, but strangly enough
can plan my trips in that 12 hour period around it most of the time, and
still take only 30 minutes to go from Flatbush to the Port Authority with
a van full of geer.
>
> I know where my taxes go
Actually, you have little clue.
> and I pay far more to support roads than I do
> to support mass transit.
Prove that. Your talking out of your ass.
> It's time to turn that around.
Show me the budgets.
Joseph D. Korman
> danny burstein wrote:
>
>> In <NemdnUfrDfswjI_V...@earthlink.com> Bolwerk
>> <n...@way.org2> writes:
>>
>>>> Why should the folk on Brooklyn and Queens
>>>> be penalized just because folk on
>>>> Staten Island allow themselves to be
>>>> ripped off in this manner?
>>
>>
>>> SI is ripped off by not having Subway access
>>
>>
>> Staent Island has that subway (well, it's open air)
>> of its very own, thank-you-very-mcuh. It even
>> has its own police force. Which is more
>> than the main NYS subway system can claim these days.
>
>
> If you call that a Subway.
>
> Either way, it's disconnected from the rest of the city.
>
>> (Maybe someone can explain just why SIRTOA
>> even exists as a separate entity, and why
>> it's got its own police?)
>
>
> It was historically a railroad. It probably needed to operate under
> different union rules when the MTA took it over, for one. It's also
> subject to FRA regulations, unlike the Subway.
Not any more. The Arlington line now only goes to the ballpark. It
used to go all the way to the lift bridge next to the Goethals, but has
been severed for years. It remains to be seen what will happen if North
Shore line is reactivated for passenger service.
>
> The MTA wanted to merge it into the same operational unit as the
> Subways, but the state legislature sat on it.
For a little while, it was actually under the SI Bus Division, makes
sense, when you think about it service wise. I believe it's now under
the TA Subway control now. In fact the R-44 cars are about to be
overhauled in Coney Island as an interim until new cars can be ordered.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Ruben
> For a little while, it was actually under the SI Bus Division, makes
> sense, when you think about it service wise. I believe it's now under
> the TA Subway control now. In fact the R-44 cars are about to be
> overhauled in Coney Island as an interim until new cars can be ordered.
How do the cars get transported to Brooklyn?
Alex L
<ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:29:56 -0400, Alex L wrote:
>
> >
> > But still haven't answered my question - why should Brooklyn and Queens
> > avoid being charged to drive in their own city when Staten Island
> > already is?
>
> Because Brooklyn and Queens entered this union on that condition and
> Staten Island did NOT.
Brooklyn and Queens entered what union on which condition?
In 1898, when Greater New York was formed, there was ONE bridge from
Brooklyn to Manhattan - and it had a toll. Staten Island had no bridge,
and, therefore, no toll. Maybe it's time to restore things to the way
they used to be?
>
> What does this have to do with anything anyway. You have resident
> discounts for the Verazanno
and you have FOUR free bridges (and it's Verrazano)
> ....and to my knowledge a free ferry
Yeah - but it doesn't take cars, so it's not much use when talking
about driving to Manhattan. Or should I mention the 16 subway lines
coming out of Brooklyn alone?
> ...duh This is a specious point.
>
> Ruben
Alex L
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:36:02 -0700, hancock4 wrote:
>
> >
> > Those bridges once had tolls, even the BB had tolls for pedestrians as
> > did many bridges back then.
> >
> > The tolls should be brought back.
>
> I have no idea about ever being an tolls on the Bridge but its been free
> since the Union of the City and it will remain so.
Nope - the tolls were removed in 1910 - twelve years after
Consolidation.
Ruben
>
> Brooklyn and Queens entered what union on which condition?
>
> In 1898, when Greater New York was formed, there was ONE bridge from
> Brooklyn to Manhattan - and it had a toll. Staten Island had no bridge,
> and, therefore, no toll. Maybe it's time to restore things to the way
> they used to be?
>>
>> What does this have to do with anything anyway. You have resident
>> discounts for the Verazanno
>
> and you have FOUR free bridges (and it's Verrazano)
>
>> ....and to my knowledge a free ferry
>
> Yeah - but it doesn't take cars, so it's not much use when talking
> about driving to Manhattan. Or should I mention the 16 subway lines
> coming out of Brooklyn alone?
When the city was formed, Brooklyn held out in the negotiations because
Manhattan releaste interests were blocking the continuation of Subway
building and blocking the building of the additional bridges. In exchange
for joining the city, it recieved guarantees of the bridges and the subway
building. And thus the union was born.
If your moving into Staten Island, with over a 3 mile gulf of harbor
between the Island and the closest point to the rest of the city, you have
to accept, aside from the lower cost for homes, the fact that it takes one
of the worlds largest suspension bridges to make the trip to the rest of
the city and that the ferry is the lifeline.
Staten Islanders should expect rights as does the rest of the city, which
should include a highly subsidized access to the Verrazzo and free ferry
service. And the cars should be allowed on the damn things.
If you think the Verrazano could withstand the punishment and neglect that
the 3 Brooklyn Eastriver bridges have undergone, forget it. I'd certain
be in favor of a plan to make the Verrazano free to SI residents,
especially if coupled with exensions of the subway system to SI through a
new trunck which could also use Governor's Island.
Aside from that, this has nothing to do with tolling the East River which
would essentially make Brooklyn and walled off as SI is from not only the
rest of the city, but the rest of continent. In fact, SI would then
become better connected to the rest of the country then Brooklyn would be
despite the central location of the Borough geographically which caused
it's development in the first place.
Ruben
>> I have no idea about ever being an tolls on the Bridge but its been free
>> since the Union of the City and it will remain so.
>
> Nope - the tolls were removed in 1910 - twelve years after
> Consolidation.
Nope, the tolls were sunseted as part of the copromise which fomred the
Union.
Peter T. Daniels
> When the city was formed, Brooklyn held out in the negotiations because
> Manhattan releaste interests were blocking the continuation of Subway
> building
Continuation? What subways were built before 1898?
> and blocking the building of the additional bridges. In exchange
> for joining the city, it recieved guarantees of the bridges and the subway
> building. And thus the union was born.
What were they releaste from?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:10:26 -0400, Alex L wrote:
> >> I have no idea about ever being an tolls on the Bridge but its been free
> >> since the Union of the City and it will remain so.
>
> > Nope - the tolls were removed in 1910 - twelve years after
> > Consolidation.
>
> Nope, the tolls were sunseted as part of the copromise which fomred the
> Union.
They "co-promised" each other to be faithful until death did them
part?
Regardless of when they were "sunseted," "the Bridge" was not free
"since the Union of the City."
Steven M. O'Neill
>Aside from that, this has nothing to do with tolling the East River which
>would essentially make Brooklyn and walled off as SI is from not only the
>rest of the city, but the rest of continent.
Perfect! Maybe it would convince people like yourself who want
a suburban lifestyle to move to New Jersey.
Joseph D. Korman
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:00:22 -0400, Joseph D. Korman wrote:
>
>
>>For a little while, it was actually under the SI Bus Division, makes
>>sense, when you think about it service wise. I believe it's now under
>>the TA Subway control now. In fact the R-44 cars are about to be
>>overhauled in Coney Island as an interim until new cars can be ordered.
>
>
> How do the cars get transported to Brooklyn?
>
> Ruben
>
From what I understand, they are brought back and forth by truck. I'm
trying to get more info on this. It's not the first time subway cars
have been transported that way.
A few years ago, I spotted a new IRT car on a flatbed trailer crossing
the GW Bridge. Unfortunately I had no camera handy, not even a cell phone.
danny burstein
>>
>>>For a little while, it was actually under the SI Bus Division, makes
>>>sense, when you think about it service wise. I believe it's now under
>>>the TA Subway control now. In fact the R-44 cars are about to be
>>>overhauled in Coney Island as an interim until new cars can be ordered.
>>
>> How do the cars get transported to Brooklyn?
> From what I understand, they are brought back and forth by truck. I'm
>trying to get more info on this. It's not the first time subway cars
>have been transported that way.
>A few years ago, I spotted a new IRT car on a flatbed trailer crossing
>the GW Bridge. Unfortunately I had no camera handy, not even a cell phone.
I similarly saw a group of (soon to be) #1 trains on flatbed
trucks in upper Manhattan about the same time.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Alex L
<joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ruben wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:00:22 -0400, Joseph D. Korman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>For a little while, it was actually under the SI Bus Division, makes
> >>sense, when you think about it service wise. I believe it's now under
> >>the TA Subway control now. In fact the R-44 cars are about to be
> >>overhauled in Coney Island as an interim until new cars can be ordered.
> >
> >
> > How do the cars get transported to Brooklyn?
> >
> > Ruben
> >
>
> From what I understand, they are brought back and forth by truck. I'm
> trying to get more info on this. It's not the first time subway cars
> have been transported that way.
No more info necessary - they do indeed go back and forth by truck.
Ruben
>
>> How do the cars get transported to Brooklyn?
>>
>> Ruben
>>
>
> From what I understand, they are brought back and forth by truck. I'm
> trying to get more info on this. It's not the first time subway cars
> have been transported that way.
>
> A few years ago, I spotted a new IRT car on a flatbed trailer crossing
> the GW Bridge. Unfortunately I had no camera handy, not even a cell phone.
What kind of truch can go over the Verrazono with a subway car on it's
back. And that would be a lot of trucks.
Wasn't there a rail ferry that connected to 36th street?
Ruben
> Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>>Aside from that, this has nothing to do with tolling the East River which
>>would essentially make Brooklyn and walled off as SI is from not only the
>>rest of the city, but the rest of continent.
>
> Perfect! Maybe it would convince people like yourself who want
> a suburban lifestyle to move to New Jersey.
Yeah that about sums up why we need a written exam before letting
midwesterners from moving to the city, not to mention that it outlines the
core attitude problem that fucks Brooklyn, not to mention the rest of the
city, over all the time.
You know, as a relative newcomer to the city, I'll tell you your not
welcome here. As a family that has lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the
Bronx for over 150 years, I invite you on a one way trip over the GW
bridge.
Alex L
<ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:59:14 -0400, Joseph D. Korman wrote:
>
> >
> >> How do the cars get transported to Brooklyn?
> >>
> >> Ruben
> >>
> >
> > From what I understand, they are brought back and forth by truck. I'm
> > trying to get more info on this. It's not the first time subway cars
> > have been transported that way.
> >
> > A few years ago, I spotted a new IRT car on a flatbed trailer crossing
> > the GW Bridge. Unfortunately I had no camera handy, not even a cell phone.
>
> What kind of truch can go over the Verrazono with a subway car on it's
> back.
One that carries an OVERSIZE LOAD placard on its back and has an escort
team travel with it.
> And that would be a lot of trucks.
And it takes one truck per subway car. SIRT tends to send them over
two at a time, so it takes two trucks. Kawasaki send them down from
Westchester four or five at a time, so it takes five trucks max.
>
> Wasn't there a rail ferry that connected to 36th street?
There was (still is) but the other end is in New Jersey. And the
Brooklyn end isn't doing so great, since the City has driven the
operator to the virtual edge of bankruptcy (because some nit from
Brooklyn thinks an under-harbor tunnel would be better).
>
> Ruben
Ruben
>
> There was (still is) but the other end is in New Jersey. And the
> Brooklyn end isn't doing so great, since the City has driven the
> operator to the virtual edge of bankruptcy (because some nit from
> Brooklyn thinks an under-harbor tunnel would be better)
A tunnel, while 90 years late on delivery, would do better.
There is still the Hellsgate route.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:53:14 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> > Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> >>Aside from that, this has nothing to do with tolling the East River which
> >>would essentially make Brooklyn and walled off as SI is from not only the
> >>rest of the city, but the rest of continent.
>
> > Perfect! Maybe it would convince people like yourself who want
> > a suburban lifestyle to move to New Jersey.
>
> Yeah that about sums up why we need a written exam before letting
> midwesterners from moving to the city, not to mention that it outlines the
> core attitude problem that fucks Brooklyn, not to mention the rest of the
> city, over all the time.
>
> You know, as a relative newcomer to the city, I'll tell you your not
> welcome here. As a family that has lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the
> Bronx for over 150 years, I invite you on a one way trip over the GW
> bridge.
Which are you, "a relative newcomer to the city," as you claim in the
first sentence, or "a family that has lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn and
the Bronx for over 150 years," as you claim in the second sentence?
If' you're more than 150 years old, no wonder you have trouble with
basic mental processes. But claiming to be a whole family? That's rich.
Ruben
Your entertainment factor has become near zero...
kirplunk
Steven M. O'Neill
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:53:14 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>>>Aside from that, this has nothing to do with tolling the East River which
>>>would essentially make Brooklyn and walled off as SI is from not only the
>>>rest of the city, but the rest of continent.
>>
>> Perfect! Maybe it would convince people like yourself who want
>> a suburban lifestyle to move to New Jersey.
>
>Yeah that about sums up why we need a written exam before letting
>midwesterners from moving to the city, not to mention that it outlines the
>core attitude problem that fucks Brooklyn, not to mention the rest of the
>city, over all the time.
>
>You know, as a relative newcomer to the city, I'll tell you your not
>welcome here. As a family that has lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the
>Bronx for over 150 years, I invite you on a one way trip over the GW
>bridge.
Wow -- that seems to have struck quite a nerve. I guess your
car-dependent lifestyle is a bit of a sore spot for you.
Whether you like it or not, most households in Brooklyn don't
own a car. And guess what, Brooklyn, already the second most
densely populated county in the U.S., isn't getting any less
crowded soon. It's only going to get more and more people as
the rest of the country tries to comes to terms with its own
car-dependent lifestyle. And that means less and less space for
cars.
Ruben
> Wow -- that seems to have struck quite a nerve. I guess your
> car-dependent lifestyle is a bit of a sore spot for you.
Well, you've been trying but you haven't. Your just another of these
smutty idiots that come to NYC sure they know the place and have never
bicycled below canal street.
It's not a problem really. You tend to move back out before your have
kids, pften on the day of your wedding, and move to Greenwich.
Steven M. O'Neill
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:58:56 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> Wow -- that seems to have struck quite a nerve. I guess your
>> car-dependent lifestyle is a bit of a sore spot for you.
>
>Well, you've been trying but you haven't.
Haha. I went to your website just so I could imagine your face
turning red when you wrote your previous reply.
>Your just another of these smutty idiots that come to NYC sure
>they know the place and have never bicycled below canal street.
>
>It's not a problem really. You tend to move back out before
>your have kids, pften on the day of your wedding, and move to
>Greenwich.
You'll be disappointed to know that my toddler son very much
enjoys his urban lifestyle. He does want to know why so few
people get to fill up so much space with their cars, but I
haven't got an answer for him.
-smo
Ruben
> Haha. I went to your website just so I could imagine your face
> turning red when you wrote your previous reply.
It takes a bit more than you to upset me, and if you went to my website
then you'd know that I have not ONE toddle, but 6 kids I raise and raised
here in a community that might average 10-14 a family.
Needless to say, we not only own cars, but we also take the subway. In
fact, you'd find a bunch of photo's of my kinds on trains on the site.
>
>>Your just another of these smutty idiots that come to NYC sure they know
>>the place and have never bicycled below canal street.
>>
>>It's not a problem really. You tend to move back out before your have
>>kids, pften on the day of your wedding, and move to Greenwich.
>
> You'll be disappointed to know that my toddler son very much enjoys his
> urban lifestyle. He does want to know why so few people get to fill up
> so much space with their cars, but I haven't got an answer for him.
Tell your one child that your moving to Greenwich, which is where you will
end up soon and let him cry when you can't drag his baseball equiptment to
Marine Park for little league because you can't fit all those bats and
gloved on your bike rack.
JohnAnon
ha ha ha, the rube from brooklyn couldn't handle Daniels.
Steven M. O'Neill
>Tell your one child that your moving to Greenwich, which is
>where you will end up soon and let him cry when you can't
>drag his baseball equiptment to Marine Park for little league
>because you can't fit all those bats and gloved on your bike
>rack.
That's a nice thought, but I doubt that it will be easier to
live in Greenwich without a car.
Peter T. Daniels
> ha ha ha, the rube from brooklyn couldn't handle Daniels.-
Do you suppose he intended to write "plonk"?
Ruben
>
> That's a nice thought, but I doubt that it will be easier to
> live in Greenwich without a car.
Oh and raising a child is cheese cake. You've got a bit a life in front
of you, but fortunate for me you'll be doing most of it from Fairfield
County.
Steven M. O'Neill
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:45:20 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>>
>> That's a nice thought, but I doubt that it will be easier to
>> live in Greenwich without a car.
>
>Oh and raising a child is cheese cake. You've got a bit a life in front
>of you, but fortunate for me you'll be doing most of it from Fairfield
>County.
How would this be fortunate for you? Perhaps the next person
who bought my place would have a car and then you'd be competing
with them for parking.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> In article <pan.2008.04.25.01.05.53.71...@www2.mrbrklyn.com>, Ruben
>
> <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>
> > And I already refuted the gibberish about Brooklyn wanting to be taxed to
> > drive in our own city with a dozen or more polls.
>
> But still haven't answered my question - why should Brooklyn and Queens
> avoid being charged to drive in their own city when Staten Island
> already is?
I live in Rockaway and I am charged a toll whenever I drive into
Howard Beach or onto Flatbush Avenue.
Chris
Alex L
<fa828bb4-5479-46b1...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<"chris.li...@gmail.com"> wrote:
But you can get out of (and back into) the Rockaways without paying a
toll - you just opt to take the shorter path and incur the toll.
Bolwerk
> On Apr 27, 4:12 pm, JohnAnon <JohnA...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 26, 8:15 pm, Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:54:10 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Apr 26, 2:53 pm, Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> You know, as a relative newcomer to the city, I'll tell you your not
>>>>> welcome here. As a family that has lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the
>>>>> Bronx for over 150 years, I invite you on a one way trip over the GW
>>>>> bridge.
>>>> Which are you, "a relative newcomer to the city," as you claim in the
>>>> first sentence, or "a family that has lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn and
>>>> the Bronx for over 150 years," as you claim in the second sentence?
>>>> If' you're more than 150 years old, no wonder you have trouble with
>>>> basic mental processes. But claiming to be a whole family? That's rich.
>>> Your entertainment factor has become near zero...
>>> kirplunk
>> ha ha ha, the rube from brooklyn couldn't handle Daniels.-
>
> Do you suppose he intended to write "plonk"?
Big deal. Get Marcie to plonk you!
Ruben
>>Oh and raising a child is cheese cake. You've got a bit a life in front
>>of you, but fortunate for me you'll be doing most of it from Fairfield
>>County.
>
> How would this be fortunate for you? Perhaps the next person
> who bought my place would have a car and then you'd be competing
> with them for parking.
Not unless they are using my Garage.
Gee.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Which, of course, was not the question.
And why should I be charged a toll when traveling from one part of
Queens to another?
Chris
Peter Schleifer
Why should you not be charged a toll everytime you drive anywhere?
--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"
JohnAnon
Has that ever happened?
chris.li...@gmail.com
Why should you not be charged a toll every time you walk somewhere?
Bolwerk
I think he plonked me. I probably made him cry.
Ruben
>
> Why should you not be charged a toll everytime you drive anywhere?
Or when I walk, ride my bike, exist my house, take an elevator? We can
easy pass the whole thing and put digital chips in your forhead.
Steven M. O'Neill
Walking is a fundamental right. Driving on public property is a
privilege granted by the people via their government's
regulations. The people can easily emend the status quo if they
so desire.
Bolwerk
But only with Ruben's permission.
Ruben
> Why should you not be charged a toll every time you walk somewhere?
>
> Walking is a fundamental right.
According to you. But your a whacko. Please do walk on the Prospect
Expressway or on the 4th avenue subway express line, close the the third
rail. It would please me and be good for your one child.
> Driving on public property is a
> privilege granted by the people via their government's
> regulations. The people can easily emend the status quo if they
> so desire.
--
Ruben
> But only with Ruben's permission.
You have my permission to walk into the bear cage in the Central Park Zoo.
Ruben
Steven M. O'Neill
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:45:39 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
>> Why should you not be charged a toll every time you walk somewhere?
>>
>> Walking is a fundamental right.
>
>According to you. But your a whacko. Please do walk on the Prospect
>Expressway or on the 4th avenue subway express line, close the the third
>rail. It would please me and be good for your one child.
You're a lovely fellow.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:46:12 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
> > But only with Ruben's permission.
>
> You have my permission to walk into the bear cage in the Central Park Zoo.
You don't have the authority to grant such permission.
Ruben
>
> You're a lovely fellow.
But 8 bicks richer today then I would have been if I'd left city
government in your hands.
Now I'm going to buy a slice of Piazza and a coke with my 8 bucks.
Ruben
Peter T. Daniels
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:09:54 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
> > You're a lovely fellow.
>
> But 8 bicks richer today then I would have been if I'd left city
> government in your hands.
>
> Now I'm going to buy a slice of Piazza and a coke with my 8 bucks.
Could anything be more pathetic?
Peter Schleifer
Ask Mr. Piazza how he feels about being sliced up.
chris.li...@gmail.com
There are plenty of places where no pedestrians are allowed. Driving
isn't a "privilege" when we're talking about road surfaces constructed
for that purpose using monies from the public purse collected
expressely for that purpose.
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
Please believe me when I say I thought Ruben's sentiments are
nauseating.
Chris
Peter T. Daniels
Driving is a privilege that can be revoked at any time for cause.
(Though I'm not sure of a fundamental right to walk, either.)
Peter Schleifer
Most of your driving is likely not on streets that received any money
from the highway trust fund.