Bill de Blasio considers raising funds for MTA through East River bridge tolls under congestion pric

[Via Garibaldi 8]

not khan, the lady who name I can't remember who fought the cross Manhattan highway projects in the 1970s.

 

And because for some reason I can almost never copy/paste on this site, or use quote;

 

The toll on a crossing, which is a service, is one thing. But to pay cross a certain street is what drives me nuts. Just arbitrarily drawn a line on the ground and say, "you want to enter this section of town, you've got to pay", is something I can not support.

 

Clear and empty streets for the limousine liberals such as Mr. W. Wilhelm...

It's not an "arbitrary line".  125th street could be considered because it's a business center that is ever growing, not just some random residential area, and thus there is more and more congestion as a result.  There should be a fee for that to deter people from driving in when there's already tons of traffic clogging up the streets.

[N6 Limited]

That's perfectly fine, but motorists should pay more for that privilege.

Motorists already pay, they pay for the vehicle, maintenance, fuel, registration, inspection, insurance, and taxes on purchase, fuel, maintenance, etc. 

 

I'm all for tolling the East River crossings as a means of rationalizing tolls. There's no reason access to the city's core should be free while it's $8 to cross the Throggs Neck. Put a $5 toll on all the bridges and call it a day. The general congestion pricing concept just screams hypocrisy. You pave the roads and build the bridges to handle a lot of traffic and all of a sudden when there's too much traffic we can charge people. If a freeway can handle 1000 cars per hour in smooth conditions and car 1001 comes along messing things up the people that did not cause congestion (because the road can accommodate their traffic) now get charged for the offense of the cars that did. Since it's near impossible to identify exactly which vehicles are exhausting the road capacity the response is to lump all motorists as selfish people causing congestion when that's far from the truth. As long as the roads can accommodate some motorists, some motorists will use them. The problem is that private motorists aren't doing the math a traffic modeler would do so the thought process is that if i'm among the group of drivers that can fit on the road before it's congested i'll make a run for it. Rather than charging people to drive into the city a better idea is to eliminate road capacity for automobiles in the city through things like pedestrian plazas (I have a few spots in mind) and bus lanes (basically putting a figurative blockade on automobiles). The upside to that is auto traffic gets reduced and no one has to come out of pocket to do something that in no way would require it. 

 

Please, give me a patrol car and I can pinpoint the road cloggers. It's not always the volume, its the people that get on the highway and clog the road going slower than everyone else and not letting other pass.

 

Why? Have you ever taken the Verrazano? Tolls exist for a reason. They provide revenue to maintain service. In this case, we need revenue to maintain infrastructure and support the MTA, because the state refuses to help. 

The tolls on the Verrazano were to pay for the construction, now it's used to subsidize the MTA's budget.

[NY1635]

not khan, the lady who name I can't remember who fought the cross Manhattan highway projects in the 1970s.

 

And because for some reason I can almost never copy/paste on this site, or use quote;

 

The toll on a crossing, which is a service, is one thing. But to pay cross a certain street is what drives me nuts. Just arbitrarily drawn a line on the ground and say, "you want to enter this section of town, you've got to pay", is something I can not support.

 

Clear and empty streets for the limousine liberals such as Mr. W. Wilhelm...

 

You must be thinking of Jane Jacobs

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I actually agree with the Third Avenue El proposal.

Modern elevated lines aren't as noisy and can provide more light. Elevated lines are a lot cheaper.

I wouldn't want any elevated lines.  Bury them... Out of sight out of mind...

 

Motorists already pay, they pay for the vehicle, maintenance, fuel, registration, inspection, insurance, and taxes on purchase, fuel, maintenance, etc. 

 

 

Please, give me a patrol car and I can pinpoint the road cloggers. It's not always the volume, its the people that get on the highway and clog the road going slower than everyone else and not letting other pass.

 

The tolls on the Verrazano were to pay for the construction, now it's used to subsidize the MTA's budget.

And you know what?  The more the costs go up, the more people keep driving, so apparently they can afford the increases.  If this was out in the boonies I would understand, but driving into Manhattan is just insane.  It's too congested to accommodate all of the people that want to drive in a big SUV with one person in the car.

[NY1635]

I wouldn't want any elevated lines.  Bury them... Out of sight out of mind...

 

And you know what?  The more the costs go up, the more people keep driving, so apparently they can afford the increases.  If this was out in the boonies I would understand, but driving into Manhattan is just insane.  It's too congested to accommodate all of the people that want to drive in a big SUV with one person in the car.

 

By that logic, we should ban buses and taxis from entering Manhattan because they clog the streets and use up more energy than the cars.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

By that logic, we should ban buses and taxis from entering Manhattan because they clog the streets and use up more energy than the cars.

That's a very cute response... Buses and taxis are forms of PUBLIC TRANSIT that carry large amounts of people.  Last I checked a gas guzzling SUV with one person in it isn't public transit. 

[Union Tpke]

The tolls to come into NYC don't have to be too much. Maybe $3.00 at max. With a lot of people coming in revenue could go up.

[QM1to6Ave]

The problem with this is that, first, unless delivery vehicles are excluded from the toll, prices of goods in the city will go up even more. Second, right now the city owns and operates the free crossings, so to get the money directly to the MTA, the ownership and operations would need to be transferred

[Kamen Rider]

a taxi with one passenger is most definitely not public transit.

[Wallyhorse]

It's not an "arbitrary line".  125th street could be considered because it's a business center that is ever growing, not just some random residential area, and thus there is more and more congestion as a result.  There should be a fee for that to deter people from driving in when there's already tons of traffic clogging up the streets.

Absolutely.  125th Street is the CBD for Harlem and like much of Manhattan continues to grow.  That is one reason I would be looking to extend Phase 2 of the SAS all the way across 125 to a terminal at Broadway-12th Avenue (and connections to all other lines that serve 125 along the way).  In fact, a case could be made to have congestion pricing start even further north once you get to the west side in Manhattan (perhaps 135th for example west of Morningside/Convent Avenue).  .  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Absolutely.  125th Street is the CBD for Harlem and like much of Manhattan continues to grow.  That is one reason I would be looking to extend Phase 2 of the SAS all the way across 125 to a terminal at Broadway-12th Avenue (and connections to all other lines that serve 125 along the way).  In fact, a case could be made to have congestion pricing start even further north once you get to the west side in Manhattan (perhaps 135th for example west of Morningside/Convent Avenue).  .  

From my observations, West Harlem will probably flourish more so than East Harlem.  Both have housing projects that deter development to some extent, but East Harlem still has plenty of quality of life issues.  Nevertheless, I'm not quite sure what causes so much traffic in that area, but I do know that when there are major detours, it seems as if 125th street comes into play.

[Daniel The Cool]

Most of these comments here doesn't make sense.

[RollOver]

create a transfer at Union Ave and Broadway for the and , create a transfer between the and at Livonia

 

I agree with this the most, especially the Union Av-B'way idea. Those Lorimer St and Hewes St stations should have never been built.

[B35 via Church]

Most of these comments here doesn't make sense.

Set those commenters straight then.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

A Taxi is not public transit. While, there are trucks and cars causing congestionon the streets, some places will have a shitload of taxis all over the place. I see that on 5th and Madison, them shits come in waves, and most don't even have people! At least the subway, local bus, has people on it, whether they have low ridership or have high amounts of ridership (DH's of course are the exception). Although they do help, they don't do much either, because they don't have the same capacity as subways or buses.

 

Amazing how bad the Queensboro gets congested because it's free. Maybe if the prices between it and the QMT were the same, certain people would reconsider going up to the bridge. This is also the case with the congestion in downtown at the Battery Tunnel. 

 

For people who might be affected greatly by the fare within the city limits, they do have the express buses. The current fare is cheaper than the tolls on the bridges and tunnels, and it'll probably help fill up some of the buses (specifically the MTA Bus Queens and Brooklyn Routes). NYC has not been developed to be a car-oriented city from the beginning. Sure, people have the right to use their car, I totally give that. However, when so many people do that, they clog up the streets, and this is precisely what is happening in Manhattan, and on the highways. The city doesn't have the capacity to construct any more expressways, and what else can be done to improve the problem. 

 

Just to clarify, the problem isn't trips outside the CBD to points that are still outside the CBD by car. The problem is that there's too much congestion that's being caused by travel to the CBD by car. This congested affects everyone, including the same people who are traveling into the CBD's. Keep in mind we have people from Long Island, the Hudson Valley, and NJ using our highways too. While we can't force those people to use public transit, it'll hoepfully encourage them.  Within city limits, we do not need that many people going into the CBD's like that, given we have adequate modes (and multiple modes of transportation) to get there. 

 

If every bus from Manhattan ran on time because of more people taking public transit, along with the tolls, there could be improvements to the roads and highways too.

[Trainmaster5]

I love this argument about congestion pricing and mass transit. The funny thing is I heard the same arguments while in high school in the 1960s. One of the overlooked parts of the argument haven't changed for the better in 50 years. Put simply, if congestion pricing or an outright ban on auto use into the CBDs of Manhattan were ever instituted how would commutation be better? Back then the NYCTA ran more train service in addition to it's bus service and the buses of the PBL. The LIRR made more stops in eastern Queens back then too. The problem was there still weren't enough trains and buses to transport the extra anticipated rush hour commuters back then. Ridership on mass transit decreased for years in NYC but has increased in recent years The "rush" hour has increased in duration both AM and PM. The was formed but you have less subway service than you did back then. I don't know about the total amount of bus service we have today compared to the 1960-68 era but, IMO, I really doubt the region has the amount of railcars and buses to make some of my fellow poster's Utopian dream a reality. I'm not saying don't try to reach that goal. I'm saying to be realistic about what is politically and economically possible.In other words if you really hit those single passenger car riders in the pocketbook and they decided to take mass transit there wouldn't be enough vehicles to transport them. Back then my science teacher said to watch "the Jetsons" cartoon when it came on. It took some of us a while to get his point but eventually it became clear. The commuters were all traveling by car. This was the same teacher who told us in 1963 that the computer would put more people out of work rather than increase employment. I still believe in him. Carry on.

[Grand Concourse]

I agree that Khan was an idiot and that those pedestrian plazas have made traffic worse, along with the reduced speeds and traffic lights that are out of sync on purpose to reduce speeds by force, but that still doesn't have anything to do with the fact that congestion is worsening and needs to be dealt with.  The population is growing here which means more cars on the road, and we have to address that problem sooner rather than later.

 

 

 

 

Please.  Stop making this about charging people to walk and bike across bridges.  This is about SELFISH car drivers that MUST drive into Manhattan in a big @ss car with one passenger in it.  It's so offensive to see that and to see how they clog up traffic and that's the problem here.

 

The only plazas that i think were good were the ones on broadway eliminating broadway almost entirely at the intersection especially herald sq with broadway going the opposite direction of 6th av. The bike lanes everywhere was over doing it.

 

Peacemaker was being sarcastic about the whole thing. Drivers are tolled for using the tunnels. The only way the congestion pricing works is if tolls across the city gets adjusted accordingly. Collect tolls in both directions and lower the toll on the vz bridge etc.

[N6 Limited]

That's a very cute response... Buses and taxis are forms of PUBLIC TRANSIT that carry large amounts of people.  Last I checked a gas guzzling SUV with one person in it isn't public transit. 

LOL that's a cute excuse. Have you seen the SOOT that comes out of the thousands of buses rolling around each day? Do you know the amount of COAL burned to run the NYC subway?

[Grand Concourse]

Most taxies i see have one passenger, so the only difference is someone else does the driving. Ok, yes at least the car is still out around picking and dropping off people instead of ending at a parking spot or garage. But with some of these drivers, you think only manhattan exists and none of the other four boroughs unless it is the airports. Not exactly that much better than driving by yourself. Although i do prefer people carpool if they insist on driving.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Most taxies i see have one passenger, so the only difference is someone else does the driving. Ok, yes at least the car is still out around picking and dropping off people instead of ending at a parking spot or garage. But with some of these drivers, you think only manhattan exists and none of the other four boroughs unless it is the airports. Not exactly that much better than driving by yourself. Although i do prefer people carpool if they insist on driving.

 

 

LOL that's a cute excuse. Have you seen the SOOT that comes out of the thousands of buses rolling around each day? Do you know the amount of COAL burned to run the NYC subway?

Yes I have and it's disturbing, which is why I strongly support new subway cars and clean air buses and want to see the older things retired. Here in Riverdale, increases in Metro-North was praised but also scolded.  I spoke at the hearing about it being good because it would take cars off of the road, but I also understood the concerns of my other fellow Riverdalians who called for more clean air Metro-North shuttle buses.  Make no mistake about it... I believe in a cleaner environment all around.  I would personally like to see fewer yellow taxis as well, as they are reckless and clog up the streets. I think there's an excess of them, and there should be more incentives to carpool with taxis, even though I use them and they're very convenient.  Next week I will be using them quite a bit for business meetings, but will use the local bus in Manhattan here and there as well.  I do my part to conserve (believe me). Recycle everything I can, re-use things a lot.  We need to be more conscious about what we do... Too much waste all around.

[ttcsubwayfan]

What do new subway cars have to do with the power generation? A new subway car is not any more environmentally conscious than an old one, they all take from the exact same power source.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What do new subway cars have to do with the power generation? A new subway car is not any more environmentally conscious than an old one, they all take from the exact same power source.

The materials used should be of better quality and they should be more efficient.  I'm speaking from an ideal standpoint.  You built new in most cases for better, more environmentally friendly products.  Either way I would rather see new cars.  It's usually a better experience for the customer, which can encourage them to use mass transit more.  Someone who drives is going look at all of the negatives of the system, and the fewer excuses they have to drive the better.

 

Me personally anytime I purchase something I always review how efficient it is.  My TV is very energy efficient, along with just about everything else in my apartment, so I practice what I preach.  I haven't done so recently, but in the past clothing that was too small and still could be used was taken to donation places for others to use.

[ttcsubwayfan]

I don't know about energy efficiency, but buying a new subway car won't offset any negative effects the construction of the old ones had on the environment. Also, all of the power for the subway is purchased in bulk (which is why the can afford to have the lights on at some abandoned stations), so the benefits of energy efficiency on new subway cars are not likely to be noticed. Even with all of this in mind, a packed subway train can potentially take 1000+ automobiles off the road. The main issue with the subway and environmental efficiency is the actual power generation.

 

Enticing people to the subway is a nice fantasy and all, but I don't see how buying new cars, not at all a practical use of funds when the issue is the R62/68s, will. Maybe some starry eyed motorist will be impressed for .2 seconds... until they realize that the station they're standing in looks like a dungeon, then they wait 12 minutes for a train, and have to deal with train congestion preventing them from getting to their end station. The rolling stock is the least of the subway's problems.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't know about energy efficiency, but buying a new subway car won't offset any negative effects the construction of the old ones had on the environment. Also, all of the power for the subway is purchased in bulk (which is why the can afford to have the lights on at some abandoned stations), so the benefits of energy efficiency on new subway cars are not likely to be noticed. Even with all of this in mind, a packed subway train can potentially take 1000+ automobiles off the road. The main issue with the subway and environmental efficiency is the actual power generation.

 

Enticing people to the subway is a nice fantasy and all, but I don't see how buying new cars, not at all a practical use of funds when the issue is the R62/68s, will. Maybe some starry eyed motorist will be impressed for .2 seconds... until they realize that the station they're standing in looks like a dungeon, then they wait 12 minutes for a train, and have to deal with train congestion preventing them from getting to their end station. The rolling stock is the least of the subway's problems.

It's the whole situation, which is why I think tiered transportation works better... More express buses, light rails, ferries, etc, that cost more but can be more attractive.  Most drivers that I do know will and do use the express bus, but would never use the subway.

[Fresh Pond]

I agree with this the most, especially the Union Av-B'way idea. Those Lorimer St and Hewes St stations should have never been built.

Lorimer & Hewes opened decades before Brosdway opened up

 

Hewes & Lorimer opened in 1888

Broadway opened in 1937, 49 years later