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

[Deucey]

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.

I get that, but it's not the answer I'm requesting, to use a bad verb. Those are damn good reasons for MoveNY, but I guess I'm not asking the right question.

 

So here it is: if the only way to fix - given that it's something that benefits rider and driver alike - is more funding, why is tolling drivers the preferred method to provide that funding instead of a method that only charges riders, or one that makes driver, rider, and pedestrians and cyclists as well?

[Union Tpke]

This is what the city would look like without the subway system:

https://mtayloranalysis.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/an-auto-oriented-manhattan/

 

During weekdays the population of Manhattan grows to 3,940,000 people[1]. This population consists of 1,460,000 local residents, 1,610,000 commuting workers, 374,000 local day-trip visitors, 70,000 commuting students, 404,000 out of town visitors, and 17,000 hospital patients[1]. If we add the workers and students with the local day-trip visitors we find that 2,060,000 people need to enter and exit Manhattan around the same times each day.

 

During weekdays the population of Manhattan grows to 3,940,000 people[1]. This population consists of 1,460,000 local residents, 1,610,000 commuting workers, 374,000 local day-trip visitors, 70,000 commuting students, 404,000 out of town visitors, and 17,000 hospital patients[1]. If we add the workers and students with the local day-trip visitors we find that 2,060,000 people need to enter and exit Manhattan around the same times each day. 

48 arbitrarily located lines representing additional 8-lane crossings

Currently the majority of these trips are provided by transit, with only 16% of people commuting by personal vehicle[2]. So how would things be different if Manhattan was not served by transit and everybody drove instead? BRIDGES AND TUNNELS The first thing to consider is the road space available for vehicles entering and existing Manhattan. The existing automobile lanes provided by the 20 bridges and tunnels connecting Manhattan are counted in Table 1.

Table 1. Automobile lanes on Manhattan crossings   INBOUND OUTBOUND REVERSIBLE 1. Brooklyn Battery Tunnel[3] 2 1 1 2. Brooklyn Bridge[4] 3 3   3. Manhattan Bridge[5] 2 2 3 4. Williamsburg Bridge[3] 2 2 4 5. Queens Midtown Tunnel[3] 2 1 1 6. Queensboro Bridge[3] 4 3 2 7. RFK Bridge[6] 3 3   8. Willis Av Bridge[7] 0 4   9. 3rd Av Bridge[8] 5 0   10. Madison Av Bridge[9] 2 2   11. 145th St Bridge[10] 4 4   12. Macombs Dam Bridge[10] 2 2   13. Alexander Hamilton Bridge[11] 4 4   14. Washington Bridge[12] 3 3   15. University Heights Bridge[10] 2 2   16. Broadway Bridge[10] 2 2   17. Henry Hudson Bridge[13] 4 3   18. George Washington Bridge[14] 7 7   19. Lincoln Tunnel[15] 2 2 2 20. Holland Tunnel[16] 2 2   TOTAL 70[17] 65  

A freeway lane operating under ideal conditions can transport 2,000 vehicles per hour[18]. From this we can determine how many vehicles per hour could enter and exit Manhattan under ideal conditions, and the amount of time for 2,060,000 vehicles to do that. The results are presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Flow rate and travel time for potential vehicles on existing Manhattan crossings (assuming ideal traffic flow)   INBOUND OUTBOUND Hourly Vehicle Capacity 140,000 130,000 Total Time For All Vehicles To Enter/Exit 15 hours 16 hours

This situation would be problematic because it leaves less than no time for other activities. In order to make this scenario function we will assume enough capacity is needed for all vehicles to enter Manhattan within a 4 hour AM peak period and exit within a 4 hour PM peak period. This would require 380 additional traffic lanes, a 280% increase, which could be provided by 48 new 8-lane crossings.[19]

 

 

PARKING The other thing to consider for this auto-oriented Manhattan is the additional parking required. The 2,060,000 people driving into Manhattan need at minimum one parking space each. With 30m2 [20] required for an off-street parking space this adds up to a total of 62km2 of parking. Manhattan is 60km2 [21] so this is equivalent to a layer of underground parking under the entire island. If we assume the local residents drive to get around and own vehicles at the US average of 82 vehicles per 100 persons[22] that will result in 1,200,000 more vehicles in Manhattan. This means 2,270,000 parking spaces if each vehicle has a space available at home and one available at work (130,000 Manhattan residents work elsewhere [1]). In total a very conservative estimate for the amount of parking required is 2 layers underneath all of Manhattan.

 

 

I think the following image... from 1940 will say something:

 

 

I get that, but it's not the answer I'm requesting, to use a bad verb. Those are damn good reasons for MoveNY, but I guess I'm not asking the right question.

So here it is: if the only way to fix - given that it's something that benefits rider and driver alike - is more funding, why is tolling drivers the preferred method to provide that funding instead of a method that only charges riders, or one that makes driver, rider, and pedestrians and cyclists as well?

The purpose of Move New York is not only to provide funding. It will reduce the number of cars going in Manhattan. People who currently use their cars to get into Manhattan would be discouraged from using private transportation, and incentivized to use public transportation. Carbon emissions would go down, a small step in reducing the impacts of climate change. Bridge shopping would no longer exist. Trucks from Long Island to New Jersey would use the direct route–the Verrazano–Narrows, instead of going on local streets to go on the Queensboro, Manhattan, or Williamsburg Bridges. There are many more benefits than the funds.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I get that, but it's not the answer I'm requesting, to use a bad verb. Those are damn good reasons for MoveNY, but I guess I'm not asking the right question.

So here it is: if the only way to fix - given that it's something that benefits rider and driver alike - is more funding, why is tolling drivers the preferred method to provide that funding instead of a method that only charges riders, or one that makes driver, rider, and pedestrians and cyclists as well?

Because people who use mass transit are already sacrificing. I was asked why I don't drive into my office. In reality I could, but what's stopping other people from doing the same? It isn't feasible to have everyone driving in. It would create too much to congestion. Drivers are targeted because they have the most impact on the entire situation. They cause more congestion and pollution. People riding bikes... We can provide a bike lane for them. We would need much more space for drivers. It's a question of which type of transportation moves the most people and has the biggest impact. Bike riders don't pollute the environment. Drivers do and drivers take up the most space if it's one person in a car compared to how many people one subway car or bus holds. Even an express bus seats 57 seated people. A car may hold 4 people, so you could have 14+ cars on the road for that one express bus. That alone would create much more congestion. Forget about transportation funding. If you give a damn about the environment, you could see why taxing drivers makes the most sense. The tax serves a double purpose. It gives the funding, but it also sends a message of hey you should take mass transit because it's better for everyone and better for the environment (less pollution) but you can drive too, just be prepared to pay more for using a limited amount of space and causing more pollution. Thank God the youth here overall agree with this concept.

[CenSin]

So here it is: if the only way to fix - given that it's something that benefits rider and driver alike - is more funding, why is tolling drivers the preferred method to provide that funding instead of a method that only charges riders, or one that makes driver, rider, and pedestrians and cyclists as well?

To put it in a sentence: punishing the driver is the intended action.

 

The effect it is supposed to cause is less traffic as people are discouraged by the “tax.” Mass transit and biking are things we want to promote as they are cost-efficient and energy-efficient (meaning environmentally-friendly), so we do not want to punish them; we want to encourage them.

 

All of that wasted resource could go into building a public transportation network that isn’t slow and has all the bells and whistles you want. The crappiness of public transportation you see today is a result of misallocation of funds/priorities.

 

Also, New York City straphangers pay a pretty hefty share of the MTA’s operating expenses. Other systems are way more subsidized, but are also not as heavily used.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

To put it in a sentence: punishing the driver is the intended action.

 

The effect it is supposed to cause is less traffic as people are discouraged by the “tax.” Mass transit and biking are things we want to promote as they are cost-efficient and energy-efficient (meaning environmentally-friendly), so we do not want to punish them; we want to encourage them.

 

All of that wasted resource could go into building a public transportation network that isn’t slow and has all the bells and whistles you want. The crappiness of public transportation you see today is a result of misallocation of funds/priorities.

 

Also, New York City straphangers pay a pretty hefty share of the MTA’s operating expenses. Other systems are way more subsidized, but are also not as heavily used.

There are so many hidden taxes that people aren't aware of that go to the from us that it isn't even funny. Every month a tax is on our cell phone bills that goes to the . There's also the tax that every yellow cab rider gives to the and on and on. At some point the taxes levied get out of control. That's why the best tax is congestion pricing for the reasons we've mentioned.

[Eric B]

This is what the city would look like without the subway system:

https://mtayloranalysis.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/an-auto-oriented-manhattan/

48 arbitrarily located lines representing additional 8-lane crossings

 

In order to make this scenario function we will assume enough capacity is needed for all vehicles to enter Manhattan within a 4 hour AM peak period and exit within a 4 hour PM peak period. This would require 380 additional traffic lanes, a 280% increase, which could be provided by 48 new 8-lane crossings.

Wow; like Chicago with wider rivers, and since they couldn't have all the bridges as high as the existing ones, there would be no shipping traffic, and they would probably landfill to make the rivers narrower! (they would have had to plan it this way in the 19th century, before they built the Brooklyn Bridge high. They were already starting to build the els at that time.If they had done this, they could have extended them more, connecting the Brooklyn and Manhattan systems).

[CenSin]

48 arbitrarily located lines representing additional 8-lane crossings[/size]

If they built that many 8-lane crossings for our subway network, we’d could support high-density high-rises in every borough! We could have some souped-up multi-modal trunks in midtown Manhattan and within the outer boroughs near the East River with walking, biking, and ride-sharing filling in for the hyper-local market.

 

All subway:

• super-local train: (every 4~9 streets) 14 Street, 18 Street, 23 Street, 28 Street, 34 Street, 42 Street, 49 Street, 53 Street, 57 Street, 63 Street, 72 Street
• local train: (every 8~13 streets) 14 Street, 23 Street, 34 Street, 42 Street, 49 Street, 57 Street, 72 Street
• express train: (every 8~80 streets) 14 Street, 34 Street. 42 Street, 57 Street, 110 Street
• super-express train: (major hubs and destinations) Fulton Street, 34 Street, 42 Street, 125 Street
• super-express train
• express train
• local train
• super-local train

 

Bus/Subway:

• local bus: (every 2~3 streets) 14 Street, 16 Street, 18 Street, 20 Street, 23 Street, 26 Street, 28 Street, 30 Street, 32 Street, 34 Street, 36 Street, 38 Street, 40 Street, 42 Street, 44 Street, 47 Street, 49 Street, 51 Street, 53 Street, 55 Street, 57 Street, 59 Street, 61 Street, 63 Street, 65 Street, 67 Street, 70 Street, 72 Street
• limited bus: (every 3~8 streets) 14 Street, 18 Street, 23 Street, 26 Street, 28 Street, 31 Street, 34 Street, 38 Street, 42 Street, 46 Street, 49 Street, 53 Street, 57 Street, 65 Street, 72 Street
• local train: (every 8~15 streets) 14 Street, 34 Street, 42 Street, 59 Street, 72 Street
• express train: (major streets, hubs, and destinations) 14 Street, 34 Street, 42 Street, 59 Street, 110 Street
• express train
• local train
• limited bus
• local bus

 

Bus/Light Rail/Subway:

• local bus: (every 2~3 streets) 14 Street, 16 Street, 18 Street, 20 Street, 23 Street, 26 Street, 28 Street, 30 Street, 32 Street, 34 Street, 36 Street, 38 Street, 40 Street, 42 Street, 44 Street, 47 Street, 49 Street, 51 Street, 53 Street, 55 Street, 57 Street, 59 Street, 61 Street, 63 Street, 65 Street, 67 Street, 70 Street, 72 Street
• limited light rail: (every 3~8 streets) 14 Street, 18 Street, 23 Street, 26 Street, 28 Street, 31 Street, 34 Street, 38 Street, 42 Street, 46 Street, 49 Street, 53 Street, 57 Street, 65 Street, 72 Street
• local train: (every 8~15 streets) 14 Street, 34 Street, 42 Street, 59 Street, 72 Street
• express train: (major streets, hubs, and destinations) 14 Street, 34 Street, 42 Street, 59 Street, 110 Street
• express train
• local train
• limited light rail
• local bus

[N6 Limited]

The purpose of Move New York is not only to provide funding. It will reduce the number of cars going in Manhattan. People who currently use their cars to get into Manhattan would be discouraged from using private transportation, and incentivized to use public transportation. Carbon emissions would go down, a small step in reducing the impacts of climate change. Bridge shopping would no longer exist. Trucks from Long Island to New Jersey would use the direct route–the Verrazano–Narrows, instead of going on local streets to go on the Queensboro, Manhattan, or Williamsburg Bridges. There are many more benefits than the funds.

I'm not so sure about the truck routes. There will be tolls either way a truck goes and the MTA truck tolls will probably be more expensive than the congestion toll because trucks need to make deliveries to all the businesses. The BQE is certainly not a direct route, time is money would a truck driver want to sit in traffic on the BQE and SIE, or just cut across Manhattan (with less traffic due to congestion pricing)?

[checkmatechamp13]

I'm not so sure about the truck routes. There will be tolls either way a truck goes and the MTA truck tolls will probably be more expensive than the congestion toll because trucks need to make deliveries to all the businesses. The BQE is certainly not a direct route, time is money would a truck driver want to sit in traffic on the BQE and SIE, or just cut across Manhattan (with less traffic due to congestion pricing)?

 

If the truck driver gets paid by the hour (and gets reimbursed or uses the company EZ-Pass for tolls), I'm sure he/she probably doesn't care about sitting in traffic.....that driver's boss on the other hand.....

[N6 Limited]

If the truck driver gets paid by the hour (and gets reimbursed or uses the company EZ-Pass for tolls), I'm sure he/she probably doesn't care about sitting in traffic.....that driver's boss on the other hand.....

I think some may be paid per delivery, Also there are only a certain number of hours they may drive per day, etc. It's not as straight forward as it seems.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think some may be paid per delivery, Also there are only a certain number of hours they may drive per day, etc. It's not as straight forward as it seems.

That's correct. You also have some delivery services that operate in a similar manner. The more deliveries they make the more money they make. They also have to deduct their expenses, so the more they spend on gas just sitting in traffic, the less money they make.