Bill de Blasio Will Push for Tax on Wealthy to Fix Subway

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I would like to add my voice to the discussion on what this mayor will do now that I have returned from two days off from this forum. I was informed on Monday that the primary date is Tuesday September 12. In the event that the top candidate for (let us say for example in the mayor's race) does not receive 40 percent  or more of the vote on that date, a runoff will be held  on Tuesday September 26. This is what happened the last time, however, the next person who had the next highest amount of votes pulled out of the race thus giving the Democratic nomination to our present mayor. Based on what I am observing in the City Council races where there are multiple candidates, it is quite possible  that there will be runoff elections there. The reason that I am raising this point now is that the number of  voters in any primary is quite small and if there is a runoff is even smaller so a very small number of people will make that decision for the entire electorate. Since many of the writers on this forum are quite passionate about their views, I hope that the writers will translate that passion into making sure that they are registered in a party that has a primary (Independents do not vote in primaries but vote in the general election) and come out (and bring their fellow registered voters as well) and vote. My observation is that many voters just come out for the presidential election and then forget about all the other elections that follow forgetting the fact that all politics are local and that a local election is more important than a national election as a couple of votes can make a big difference in who gets elected.

As far as the $15 minimum wage is concerned, yes, it was the Governor who pushed it through the legislation, however, it was the mayor who was one of those who started the ball rolling in this state. The governor went for it and checkmate champ said, the only way that it was passed was to have it eased in over a couple of years as upstate representatives would have not accepted it as one straight thing. The governor pushed it because the mayor wanted it and since it is the city that determines who gets elected, he cannot go against the mayor for fear of losing his particular constituency. The governor cannot get elected by the suburbs and the rest of the state so he needs the city and thus he will play to them even though in many cases, it has harmed the upstate economy quite severely through the imposition of taxes that have helped the city but destroyed upstate. I remain opposed to the mayor's proposal concerning a tax for the MTA  as there are plenty of places for this mayor to cut programs as the city budget has increased over 20% since he took office four years ago and the number of city employees has gone up as well which means higher costs for pensions and health care in the future as if they are not already through the roof. The agency is already deferring payments and this will come back to hurt the agency sooner or later. What I am deftly afraid of is that there will be an economic downturn and no matter how slight, the city will be in very bad financial straits (and for that matter so will the state) as there are certain things that are mandated by the New York State Constitution and therefore must be paid regardless of whether the city or the state wants it to be spent someplace else.

I am an Independent, so I will not be able to vote until the general election.

[LTA1992]

Yep you can see this when it's time to raise the subway fare and people say "why not charge drivers, they get to drive into Manhattan for free"

The thing is, even if you don't take the subway, you benefit from it. Could you imagine how bad the traffic would be if a million less people a day didn't ride the subways? It's already bad now.

 

Every single person that lives and works in this city benefits from the subway. Whether or not you take it.

 

If we were to institute congestion pricing, and the State didn't shaft the MTA on those funds, that could mean better service, more lines, and thus, less cars on the road freeing up space and improving air quality. Which also benefits the overall health of New Yorkers in the long run. 

 

As I said last night in a FB group talking about this: "Seeing Americans be Americans is why I've begun to adopt the European mindset to transit issues. We need and we want and no one wants to give. No matter how you slice it, we are paying. Even when the money is printed from thin air. Which all USD essentially is."

[RailRunRob]

I am an Independent, so I will not be able to vote until the general election.

There’s something we have in common! Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Deucey]

The thing is, even if you don't take the subway, you benefit from it. Could you imagine how bad the traffic would be if a million less people a day didn't ride the subways? It's already bad now.

 

Every single person that lives and works in this city benefits from the subway. Whether or not you take it.

 

If we were to institute congestion pricing, and the State didn't shaft the MTA on those funds, that could mean better service, more lines, and thus, less cars on the road freeing up space and improving air quality. Which also benefits the overall health of New Yorkers in the long run.

 

As I said last night in a FB group talking about this: "Seeing Americans be Americans is why I've begun to adopt the European mindset to transit issues. We need and we want and no one wants to give. No matter how you slice it, we are paying. Even when the money is printed from thin air. Which all USD essentially is."

Shoe on the other foot:

 

Even if you don't drive, you benefit from drivers. Could you imagine how cramped subway trains and stations would be if 1 million more people per day took it instead of driving? It's already bad now.

 

Every single person that lives or works in this city benefits from driving - whether or not they're drivers.

 

If we were to institute a local sales tax for transit maintenance - or any other taxation scheme that captures more of the 24 hour NYC population than a congestion charge and tolling, that could mean better service, more lines, and thus, one less sin tax assessed on a demographic by a tyrannical majority that wants everything but doesn't give up anything.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Shoe on the other foot:

 

Even if you don't drive, you benefit from drivers. Could you imagine how cramped subway trains and stations would be if 1 million more people per day took it instead of driving? It's already bad now.

 

Every single person that lives or works in this city benefits from driving - whether or not they're drivers.

 

If we were to institute a local sales tax for transit maintenance - or any other taxation scheme that captures more of the 24 hour NYC population than a congestion charge and tolling, that could mean better service, more lines, and thus, one less sin tax assessed on a demographic by a tyrannical majority that wants everything but doesn't give up anything.

There is nothing beneficial about one person in a gas guzzling car.  That's precisely why congestion in the City is so horrid now.  I support the European model of discouraging driving at all costs, which includes congestion pricing, and penalizing drivers who feel as if they must drive to and from their destination.  I don't think it's enough to look solely at the Manhattan core below 60th street. We need to look at the outerboroughs as well.  We need more deliveries happening late at night because those trucks are clogging up the streets like no tomorrow. We need to expand Ferry service, bike riding, Uber carpooling and other measures to get people from being addicted to driving in on the most densely populated areas of the country.  We simply don't have an infinite amount of road space available for all of these people to be strolling around with one person in the car.  For the people that don't think they can use the transportation options available to them, they can pay more for the luxury of driving.  I admit that transportation has to be improved across the board and become less Manhattan-centric, because that's one excuse that people that drive can use. Oh well transportation is inconvenient if you're not going to Manhattan, and that's true, so that's why we have to eliminate such excuses, and when those excuses are gone, those people can then finally admit that they just think they're above everyone else/too good to use public transportation.

 

I've had people admit as much to me in person; that they will never step foot on a subway or bus because it's too dirty, etc., and that's fine, but let's be honest and not make excuses.  That's the main reason why people don't want to use public transit. Now I'm not saying that we have to force people onto public transit either because some people are going to drive no matter what and that's fine, but they can pay for having such a luxury.  For the people that would use public transit if it was cleaner and more accessible, we need to be addressing those concerns.  Hire more cleaners, create more routes that are commuter friendly and so on, and you can do that if you have congestion pricing in place, with funding that is dedicated solely to improving transportation and infrastructure.

[RR503]

A transit maintenance tax is a relit fare increase...

 

The fact of the matter is drivers have a larger proportional effect on the infrastructure they use than subway riders. They should be charged for their use, as driving is not only spatially inefficient in a city like ours, but it is also energetically so. If we are to have a functioning metropolis, everyone has to give a little to create a greater good. This tax will create revenue for the mx/construction of new subway lines, while discouraging damaging behavior. 

[Deucey]

A transit maintenance tax is a relit fare increase...

 

The fact of the matter is drivers have a larger proportional effect on the infrastructure they use than subway riders. They should be charged for their use, as driving is not only spatially inefficient in a city like ours, but it is also energetically so. If we are to have a functioning metropolis, everyone has to give a little to create a greater good. This tax will create revenue for the mx/construction of new subway lines, while discouraging damaging behavior.

Except everyone isn't giving a little with congestion charges and tolling - only one segment of the population is.

 

Like I said earlier, every (sin) tax is a great one if YOU aren't the one paying it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

A transit maintenance tax is a relit fare increase...

 

The fact of the matter is drivers have a larger proportional effect on the infrastructure they use than subway riders. They should be charged for their use, as driving is not only spatially inefficient in a city like ours, but it is also energetically so. If we are to have a functioning metropolis, everyone has to give a little to create a greater good. This tax will create revenue for the mx/construction of new subway lines, while discouraging damaging behavior. 

I had a person asking me last night about me not driving into Manhattan. This guy has been driving to work from Brooklyn into Manhattan on a regular basis citing the poor subways, and he kept asking me how I got around without a car in my neighborhood.  It took me explaining that I live in a VERY pedestrian friendly part of Riverdale where I have everything within walking distance, not to mention that most of my travel is into Manhattan, so why would I drive into Manhattan to then have to fight to get parking or park in a garage? It's not worth it. If my commute was atrocious, then it would make sense, but a good portion of people in my building either take the express bus, or are picked up now.  Fewer and fewer people moving in now drive unless they work somewhere where transportation stinks and some who had cars got rid of them.  Parking is not that easy and would likely mean me having to park in a garage somewhere, which means more time getting the car out, etc.  Waste of time and money.

Except everyone isn't giving a little with congestion charges and tolling - only one segment of the population is.

 

Like I said earlier, every (sin) tax is a great one if YOU aren't the one paying it.

Well either you do congestion pricing, or you reward/incentivize people for leaving their cars at home OR driving during off-peak hours.  As it stands now, the status quo can't continue.  I am sick of sacrificing and taking the express bus only to sit in tons of traffic because of double and triple parked trucks all over the place, and drivers driving solo in their car.  That's just crazy. We have almost 9 million people now living here.  If we had a smaller population, yes driving wouldn't be a big deal, but we aren't going to magically create more road space, so that means that we have no choice but to maximize what does exist.

[Interested Rider]

I cannot vote in the primary either as there are no Republican contests in my district that i know about right now. However, even though I am not a member of the Democratic Party, I remind the Democrats that it is extremely important that they come out and vote especially if they do not like the incumbent mayor. In a city where there is a 9:1 Democratic registration, it is the primary where the election is decided, not on election day. I know that the press will be busy taking pictures of how empty the polls  are but if a person is a registered Democratic party member  then it is incumbent upon them to come out and vote as the persons working the various election districts have no control on the turnout. This is why I wrote what I did as no matter what is your party registration please talk to your friends and neighbors that are members of a particular party that has a primary that they should come out to vote in the primary and general election if they want a change. By staying home, they send a message that they are in agreement with the mayor's policies and therefore should not complain when he is re-elected.

I can talk about why I do not like this politician or that politician from today till doomsday and why I do not like his/her policies but unless the voters come in high enough numbers out to vote in the primary and general elections, nothing will change. It is not the unions, the chamber of commerce or any of the so called groups that have their own special interest which may run contrary to my interests, it is the voters that make the decisions if they come out in the numbers that will send a message loud and clear. The so called elected leaders have thrown down the gauntlet to the voters concerning more taxes (as well as on other issues)  to and what will the voters do about it? Based on my reading of the political landscape, the voters will re-elect the mayor and his cronies who now will be free to go to the governor who is running next year and say we want new taxes upon us and it will become a fiat-accompli thanks to our wonderful state legislature.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I cannot vote in the primary either as there are no Republican contests in my district that i know about right now. However, even though I am not a member of the Democratic Party, I remind the Democrats that it is extremely important that they come out and vote especially if they do not like the incumbent mayor. In a city where there is a 9:1 Democratic registration, it is the primary where the election is decided, not on election day. I know that the press will be busy taking pictures of how empty the polls  are but if a person is a registered Democratic party member  then it is incumbent upon them to come out and vote as the persons working the various election districts have no control on the turnout. This is why I wrote what I did as no matter what is your party registration please talk to your friends and neighbors that are members of a particular party that has a primary that they should come out to vote in the primary and general election if they want a change. By staying home, they send a message that they are in agreement with the mayor's policies and therefore should not complain when he is re-elected.

I can talk about why I do not like this politician or that politician from today till doomsday and why I do not like his/her policies but unless the voters come in high enough numbers out to vote in the primary and general elections, nothing will change. It is not the unions, the chamber of commerce or any of the so called groups that have their own special interest which may run contrary to my interests, it is the voters that make the decisions if they come out in the numbers that will send a message loud and clear. The so called elected leaders have thrown down the gauntlet to the voters concerning more taxes (as well as on other issues)  to and what will the voters do about it? Based on my reading of the political landscape, the voters will re-elect the mayor and his cronies who now will be free to go to the governor who is running next year and say we want new taxes upon us and it will become a fiat-accompli thanks to our wonderful state legislature.

I don't think de Blasio has it in the bag. Issue is he has no challenger, and there is no one to rather give him a run for the money, so while many don't care for him, who else is there to vote for? I'm not really wild about Malliotakis, but she would be better than de Blasio overall, and any other candidates running haven't been all that vocal.

[LTA1992]

Shoe on the other foot:

 

Even if you don't drive, you benefit from drivers. Could you imagine how cramped subway trains and stations would be if 1 million more people per day took it instead of driving? It's already bad now.

 

Every single person that lives or works in this city benefits from driving - whether or not they're drivers.

 

If we were to institute a local sales tax for transit maintenance - or any other taxation scheme that captures more of the 24 hour NYC population than a congestion charge and tolling, that could mean better service, more lines, and thus, one less sin tax assessed on a demographic by a tyrannical majority that wants everything but doesn't give up anything.

Are you a child?

 

How DARE you try to take what I said and try to use it against me in such a childish way. Listen, the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. 

 

You can build more subways. But I dare you to try and ram yet ANOTHER interstate through this city. Which one do you think will have the larger benefit? Or for that matter, cause more damage? We tried the "cater to the roads" scheme already. Caused this city more harm than it was worth, sliced open an economic wound that has yet to be fixed, and it only made the traffic (and air quality) problem worse.

 

Subways can be built in already established roads, the only surface space being taken are for ventilation shafts and entrances. The people will migrate to the new routes as that would likely be a faster route. Since, in some ways, it would be a cheaper method of transport. Which is the POINT of CP. Less traffic on the roads also means a better bus network. Which, and get this, would ALSO begin to take in more riders because it too is now more reliable. Did I forget to mention the overall improvement of health?

 

Missed me with that shit. Try again.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Are you a child?

 

How DARE you try to take what I said and try to use it against me in such a childish way. Listen, the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. 

 

You can build more subways. But I dare you to try and ram yet ANOTHER interstate through this city. Which one do you think will have the larger benefit? Or for that matter, cause more damage? We tried the "cater to the roads" scheme already. Caused this city more harm than it was worth, sliced open an economic wound that has yet to be fixed, and it only made the traffic problem worse.

 

Subways can be built in already established roads, the only surface space being taken are for shafts and entrances. The people will migrate to the new routes as that would likely be a faster route. Since, in some ways, it would be a cheaper method of transport. Which is the POINT of CP. Less traffic on the roads also means a better bus network. Which, and get this, would ALSO begin to take in more riders because it too is now more reliable.

 

Missed me with that shit. Try again.

This guy is from California. He is NOT pro-transit, and that shouldn't come as a surprise.  I don't get those folks out there. They would rather sit in a parking lot (aka expressway) just so they can "drive". It's crazy.  

[LTA1992]

This guy is from California. He is NOT pro-transit, and that shouldn't come as a surprise.  I don't get those folks out there. They would rather sit in a parking lot (aka expressway) just so they can "drive". It's crazy.  

That's the thing. LOS ANGELES has pretty much rebuilt its rail network from scratch. 

 

Kuruma-Oh Los Angeles can do it and we're just sitting here in the sticks playing with our toes. New York. What a shame.

 

I didn't know he was from Cali. Then I guess I'm truly wasting my time with him. Why is he even here?

 

I wouldn't expect a Califorian to understand. London has the right idea. And guess what? They continue to improve to meet demand when it comes to mass transit.

 

The Overground, improvements to the rail lines going in and out of the terminals, Thameslink, Crossrail 1, and hopefully, Crossrail 2. The Northern Line Exstension to Battersea Power Station and soon, the Bakerloo Line extension south of the Thames. And now, rolling out 24/7 service? I have pride for them.

 

Then there's Paris with the Grand Paris Express. Needs of the people first. That's how it should be.

[Deucey]

Are you a child?

 

How DARE you try to take what I said and try to use it against me in such a childish way. Listen, the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.

 

You can build more subways. But I dare you to try and ram yet ANOTHER interstate through this city. Which one do you think will have the larger benefit? Or for that matter, cause more damage? We tried the "cater to the roads" scheme already. Caused this city more harm than it was worth, sliced open an economic wound that has yet to be fixed, and it only made the traffic (and air quality) problem worse.

 

Subways can be built in already established roads, the only surface space being taken are for ventilation shafts and entrances. The people will migrate to the new routes as that would likely be a faster route. Since, in some ways, it would be a cheaper method of transport. Which is the POINT of CP. Less traffic on the roads also means a better bus network. Which, and get this, would ALSO begin to take in more riders because it too is now more reliable. Did I forget to mention the overall improvement of health?

 

Missed me with that shit. Try again.

I didn't miss - you got triggered because I substituted some of your words with mine and the argument was just as cogent.

 

But I'm the child.

 

[N6 Limited]

I would gladly avoid driving through Manhattan if they built a tunnel from NJ to Brooklyn/Queens.

 

We already have the VZ.

Yes, but the VZ connects Brooklyn andStaten Island. I said Brooklyn/Queens directly to New Jersey,  I can do without the Staten Island Expressway and round-about trip.

 

The thing is, even if you don't take the subway, you benefit from it. Could you imagine how bad the traffic would be if a million less people a day didn't ride the subways? It's already bad now.

 

Every single person that lives and works in this city benefits from the subway. Whether or not you take it.

 

If we were to institute congestion pricing, and the State didn't shaft the MTA on those funds, that could mean better service, more lines, and thus, less cars on the road freeing up space and improving air quality. Which also benefits the overall health of New Yorkers in the long run. 

 

As I said last night in a FB group talking about this: "Seeing Americans be Americans is why I've begun to adopt the European mindset to transit issues. We need and we want and no one wants to give. No matter how you slice it, we are paying. Even when the money is printed from thin air. Which all USD essentially is."

It would be nice if they can use the money to pay off the MTA's debt, if they weren't making debt payments they could do a lot in terms of service/maintenance

 

There is nothing beneficial about one person in a gas guzzling car.  That's precisely why congestion in the City is so horrid now.  I support the European model of discouraging driving at all costs, which includes congestion pricing, and penalizing drivers who feel as if they must drive to and from their destination.  I don't think it's enough to look solely at the Manhattan core below 60th street. We need to look at the outerboroughs as well.  We need more deliveries happening late at night because those trucks are clogging up the streets like no tomorrow. We need to expand Ferry service, bike riding, Uber carpooling and other measures to get people from being addicted to driving in on the most densely populated areas of the country.  We simply don't have an infinite amount of road space available for all of these people to be strolling around with one person in the car.  For the people that don't think they can use the transportation options available to them, they can pay more for the luxury of driving.  I admit that transportation has to be improved across the board and become less Manhattan-centric, because that's one excuse that people that drive can use. Oh well transportation is inconvenient if you're not going to Manhattan, and that's true, so that's why we have to eliminate such excuses, and when those excuses are gone, those people can then finally admit that they just think they're above everyone else/too good to use public transportation.

 

I've had people admit as much to me in person; that they will never step foot on a subway or bus because it's too dirty, etc., and that's fine, but let's be honest and not make excuses.  That's the main reason why people don't want to use public transit. Now I'm not saying that we have to force people onto public transit either because some people are going to drive no matter what and that's fine, but they can pay for having such a luxury.  For the people that would use public transit if it was cleaner and more accessible, we need to be addressing those concerns.  Hire more cleaners, create more routes that are commuter friendly and so on, and you can do that if you have congestion pricing in place, with funding that is dedicated solely to improving transportation and infrastructure.

I use the subway when I'm going to Manhattan and sometimes Brooklyn, but there are many instances where it is simply quicker by at least an hour to drive instead!

[LTA1992]

It would be nice if they can use the money to pay off the MTA's debt, if they weren't making debt payments they could do a lot in terms of service/maintenance

But that would be too easy. Our monetary system would never allow that because under said system, money cannot exist without debt.

 

If all debt was paid tomorrow here and abroad, not a single US Dollar would be in circulation.

[bobtehpanda]

It would be nice if they can use the money to pay off the MTA's debt, if they weren't making debt payments they could do a lot in terms of service/maintenance

 

Really, the State and City should be the ones spearheading expansion (and assume all that debt). The MTA should really be only in charge of operations and general maintenance.

[LTA1992]

I didn't miss - you got triggered because I substituted some of your words with mine and the argument was just as cogent.

 

But I'm the child.

 

Sorry if I have a low tolerance for ignorance on an issue that affects me more than it will ever affect you. This forum is full of people with ideas. Ideas that, in most cases, can be practically applied to the system if heard by the right people. Ideas that could very well be what this city needs, and there are other members here who could possibly get those ideas out.

 

This is a city that could, in 30 years, begin to collapse from the strain of its own success. And frankly, I've gotten very frustrated. From the media and it's heavy amounts of misreporting, to our governments and their inability to work together to make a viable, succinct, solution. Seeing my city, the symbol of American greatness, fall behind as other world cities take over as the pinnacle of success because they actually invest in their public.

 

So yes, you are. Only kids do that. Coulda said women, but that'd be sexist.

 

Goodnight.

[Deucey]

Sorry if I have a low tolerance for ignorance on an issue that affects me more than it will ever affect you.

 

So yes, you are. Only kids do that. Coulda said women, but that'd be sexist.

 

Goodnight.

Since my 37th birthday is in two weeks, definitely not a child.

 

Since I didn't get triggered because of a counterargument, definitely not a child.

 

Since I didn't hurl personal insults in replies, definitely not a child.

 

Given that all you learned about me are from pixels on a screen - and you still got it wrong, how can you definitively declare that MoveNY or a city-wide sales tax add-on will affect you more than me or me more than you?

 

Lemme help you be grown: you don't have all the facts about anything about funding or futures - just like I don't, just like damn near everyone here, save ENY and a few others, don't. So acting as if your opinion has the same force as Moses with the tablets and then throwing a tantrum because someone disagreed with you is unbecoming. Add in the "Coulda said women, but that'd be sexist" and you've told me everything I need to know about you as a person.

 

And all you have of me is my headshot and that I relocated to Staten Island from Sacramento.

 

And even in the midst of your entire tantrum, you haven't even said why a city-wide sales tax is a bad idea - only what the "possible" benefits of MoveNY could be. And you haven't even addressed how MoveNY is not discrimination against a specific population - which has been my issue with it every time I've posted on it since it punishes drivers while riders make no sacrifice.

 

If you could stop seeing red and address the issue I raised,

[Around the Horn]

I'm sorry but suggesting that everyone benefits from people driving in their cars is ludicrously false and pretty much every single urban planner will tell you so.

[Deucey]

I'm sorry but suggesting that everyone benefits from people driving in their cars is ludicrously false and pretty much every single urban planner will tell you so.

Opinions and rectums. But that wasn't my original point, which I restated as a question in the last graff of my previous post.

[CenSin]

I didn't miss - you got triggered because I substituted some of your words with mine and the argument was just as cogent.

Shoe on the other foot:

 

Even if you don't drive, you benefit from drivers. Could you imagine how cramped subway trains and stations would be if 1 million more people per day took it instead of driving? It's already bad now.

 

Every single person that lives or works in this city benefits from driving - whether or not they're drivers.

 

If we were to institute a local sales tax for transit maintenance - or any other taxation scheme that captures more of the 24 hour NYC population than a congestion charge and tolling, that could mean better service, more lines, and thus, one less sin tax assessed on a demographic by a tyrannical majority that wants everything but doesn't give up anything.

Your substitution doesn’t work. The shoe doesn’t fit on the other foot.

 

Take an extreme case for example: a million* New Yorkers drive daily; there is no subway or bus network to speak of. It’s an impossible situation with the low density of a personal vehicle. The overhead per person is huge. You have an engine, at least 4 wheels, and a structural frame all for one person. All of it also occupies a certain amount of space on the road. With the small amount of road space, a car-only New York couldn’t possibly move a million people daily.

 

Now take the other extreme: a million* New Yorkers take the public transportation daily; personal vehicles are nonexistent. At the very least, it’s not physically impossible since the city already moves this volume with public transportation and personal vehicles. If the personal vehicles were substituted by an expanded public transportation network which is automatically guaranteed to be higher density than personal vehicles, then a city that is entirely dependent on public transportation is possible! Since public transportation is more cost-effective, one could argue that in this scenario, a 100% focus on public transportation benefits the most people by no expending money on inefficient ferries, cars on roads, and other low-density modes of transportation.

 

My point is that having less drivers benefits everyone more than having less public transportation.

 

 

* substitutes for the actual number of New Yorkers traveling

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Opinions and rectums. But that wasn't my original point, which I restated as a question in the last graff of my previous post.

You're arguing that drivers would be penalized. They would because we simply don't have space to have one person driving in every car. It's not efficient in any way shape or form and if you ask most New Yorkers they understand this concept. A few years ago after Sandy, the city was a mess because we had so many people that simply couldn't use the subways.

[Deucey]

You're arguing that drivers would be penalized. They would because we simply don't have space to have one person driving in every car. It's not efficient in any way shape or form and if you ask most New Yorkers they understand this concept. A few years ago after Sandy, the city was a mess because we had so many people that simply couldn't use the subways.

Agreed. But I still don't see anyone explaining why only drivers should foot the bill for this transit expansion instead of everybody.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Agreed. But I still don't see anyone explaining why only drivers should foot the bill for this transit expansion instead of everybody.

They only pay if they decide to drive. Unlike the millionaire's tax, this is a tax that can be avoided. Your trip may take a lot longer, but can likely still be done via transit. It's not about drivers footing the bill. It's about getting people to understand that we don't have an infinite amount of space for cars, so if those people insist that they must drive, then they can pay to do so. This is a situation where not driving benefits more people. Congestion overall hurts our economy and it hurts everyone, including people that drive because it means longer trips. Despite the truck drivers that complain about the tax, they also complain about the fact that their expenses have gone up because they spend more time in traffic, so either way these people are paying via more taxes or increased business costs. The question is how many people do we force into a situation where they're losing money? Congestion costs the city money by way of lost wages/profits and lost taxes, so you have to combat this, otherwise it can start to have a huge negative impact on the local economy. People are already increasing their commutes, myself included. Now that it takes me longer to reach my tutoring sessions, it means that my potential to earn extra money decreases, OR I have to charge my clients more. I have one person that uses me for computer consultation as well. I have now increased my fee to a $65.00 minimum ($35.00 base and $30.00 travel) because it takes longer for me to reach her, which means I can't maximize my earning potential and I have to be compensated for my time. This is played out with a lot of other people who can't adjust what they earn. They may be forced to spend money on cabs or other things that they can't really afford, but have to use because they need to arrive on-time to work.