Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Yet again... Assembly rep Colton denies MTA funds, then bashes it


NX Express

Recommended Posts

047.jpg

Fourteen years ago, the 47th District in Brooklyn elected William Colton, a Democrat, to to serve as its Assembly representative. His district includes Bensonhurst, Gravesend, Bath Beach, Dyker Heights and Midwood, transit-heavy areas that depend on numerous subway lines and bus routes to connect it with the rest of New York City.

Colton’s district is a minority in New York City in that more than 50 percent of his constituents are car owners. According to stale numbers, 46.1 percent of households in District 47 do not own cars while 53.9 percent do. However, only 3.2 percent of drivers head into Manhattan’s Central Business District from Colton’s area while 31.2 percent of workers take transit to that CBD. Still, Assembly representative Colton can join the long and growing list of Albany representatives who are happy to bash the MTA with one hand while taking the agency’s money away with the other.

Colton’s comments come to us from the Brooklyn Eagle in what appears to be a press release. The Assembly rep is upset about the elimination of numerous station agents. “The MTA has been going down a dangerous path of reducing front-line personnel to a minimum,” Colton said. “Leaving booths in portions of major stations closed inconveniences people from all walks of life, including the elderly, disabled and other persons needing assistance. Closing these booths, some of which are the only booths serving a station entrance, is a disgrace.”

He continued with a typical rant about the MTA’s service becoming akin to that offered in the 1970s when track fires, massive delays and rampant problems were the norm. With new rolling stock and an investment into the physical plant of the subways, no comparison less apt. “It’s time to look at reorganizing the MTA into an agency which is focused on improving transit and increasing service, not raising fares and cutting service. If we fail to change course, we risk our subway degrading into a crime-ridden, unreliable service such as existed in the 1970s.”

The MTA is doing everything Colton accuses it of doing, but for someone who has shown no willingness to support transit, his moralizing rubs me the wrong. Colton, who claims that the MTA is “failing to meet the public need for safe and reliable public transit,” has been nothing but bad for transit. In 2008, despite the make-up of his district, he didn’t support congestion pricing and couched his opposition in populist terms. At the time, he said that the city’s “real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source from the middle class and working poor.” Never mind the fact that middle and working class residents simply do not own cars or, if they do, do not drive into Manhattan’s CBD during the congestion pricing hours. Never mind the fact that these residents would stand to benefit from investments in transit.

His finest moment came when he levied this claim, using what I would call reverse logic to take apart congestion pricing:

 

 

"In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction."

 

Colton did not stop in 2008 or start bashing the MTA yesterday. Earlier this year, he called for the authority to inform community boards of changes to station staffing levels and has, as Cap’n Transit noted, called for eliminating waste and corruption. He also voted for removing $143 million in earmarked money from the MTA’s coffers late last year.

The problem with Colton’s position is the noise. The MTA should be more willing to talk about the safety impact of cutting station agents. MTA leadership has engaged in an extensive effort to cut waste at all levels. But the MTA can’t fund station agents without money, and Colton is just one of many who has worked to undercut the MTA’s funding streams. He hasn’t approved measures — such as congestion pricing — that the majority of New Yorkers support, and he voted to take away earmarked dollars. His left hand is criticizing the MTA for actions of his right, and that cannot stand.

 

 

Source: http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/08/17/assembly-rep-colton-denies-mta-funds-then-bashes-it/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical politician denying MTA funding and then complaining. But I should qualify that by saying that because he voted against congestion pricing that makes him SMART at least on some level.

 

Repeat after me:

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

Congestion pricing was, is, and always will be a stupid and unfeasible f**king idea promoted by the idiotic Mayor Bloomberg and his butt buddies in the media who are also rich

 

GOT IT????? People need to learn this and read over and over and over and over again until they get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think clarification is required.

 

For some people, yes it is.

 

And congestion pricing will not work in New York. I'm sick of hearing about all these foreign cities that have shit that won't work in NY. Some places have prohibition, others have outright Communism, others have no transportation, others have curfews, none of that will work in NY. People really need to start to think for themselves before they just parrot what some other city does.

 

Congestion pricing is a tax on the middle class that inconveniences people who actually live in the city by redirecting traffic to their neighborhoods outside of the CBD. It's also highly unenforceable and requires hefty city resources to implement and enforce. Such enforcement would create back any gridlock saved. It also redirects law enforcement's focus from something priority (neighborhood watch, crime fighting, antiterrorism, and general safety) to something non priority (playing traffic cop).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also highly unenforceable and requires hefty city resources to implement and enforce. Such enforcement would create back any gridlock saved. It also redirects law enforcement's focus from something priority (neighborhood watch, crime fighting, antiterrorism, and general safety) to something non priority (playing traffic cop).

 

It would not be that hard to enforce it since Manhattan is and island. Toll plazas would have to be built at all the river crossings (yes that would cost money but I'm only talking about the enforcement aspect). Also, I think Bridge and Tunnel officers would be the ones doing enforcement so it would NOT remove NYPD officers from their duties. The gridlock that you say it would create would be in the outer boros, NOT in the city so thats not an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not be that hard to enforce it since Manhattan is and island. Toll plazas would have to be built at all the river crossings (yes that would cost money but I'm only talking about the enforcement aspect). Also, I think Bridge and Tunnel officers would be the ones doing enforcement so it would NOT remove NYPD officers from their duties. The gridlock that you say it would create would be in the outer boros, NOT in the city so thats not an issue.

 

Except that wasn't the plan for congestion pricing. The plan was to isolate midtown Manhattan specifically as a congestion pricing zone with a cutoff of something like 57th or 59th street. Therefore encouraging people to park just outside that zone, and also causing congestion around the perimeter of that area as enforcement is dealt with inefficiently on the city's streets themselves.

 

Tolling the river crossings is different than the specific "congestion pricing" plan that was proposed and thankfully rejected. I'm not dead set against tolling river crossings, but I don't think that's going to help NYC's economy any, and it's going to drive what little productive business remains (jobs who make something) out of the city. If there was a way to do it that didn't do this (single passenger non commercial plates paid a toll, for instance) I might think there's something to it.

 

But congestion pricing as proposed was a horrible idea and mercifully shot down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.