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.
Sign in to follow this  
Around the Horn

Brooklyn Eagle: Congestion pricing would shave hours off Brooklyn and Queens express bus routes, Riders Alliance report shows

Recommended Posts

Paging @Via Garibaldi 8

Quote

Congestion pricing would shorten express bus travel times on Brooklyn and Queens routes by up to two hours per week, according to a new report released by a grassroots transit advocacy group.

A report by Riders Alliance projects that if Albany lawmakers included congestion pricing — a policy that would bill motorists who choose to drive into parts of Midtown Manhattan — in their upcoming funding plan, commuters could see speed increases of 20 percent in Central Manhattan and 7 percent elsewhere.

Riders of the city’s express buses — many of whom are considered “super commuters” that travel more than 90 minutes each way to work — would, in turn, save anywhere from one to two hours on commuting if congestion pricing is implemented south of 60th Street in Manhattan, the study shows.

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2018/10/30/congestion-pricing-would-shave-hours-brooklyn-and-queens-express-bus-routes

Edited by Around the Horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Around the Horn said:

Thanks for sharing this. I've been in talks with the Riders Alliance.  We're in the process of trying to have a meet and greet if you will just to see where we stand on some issues and see if we can work together going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm up for the idea of congestion pricing or traffic restrictions, lots of cities in the EU do such things 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Along Brooklyn’s BM1 bus route, for example — which the MTA says takes approximately one hour and 44 minutes to run from Mill Basin to Midtown — commuters could expect to save one hour and 35 minutes per week on their commute if congestion pricing were implemented.

Source:  Brooklyn Eagle

 

I don't know how true this is.. However, a lot of time can be saved with all the BM routes especially 1 and 2 which travel longer distances.

I'd like to see congesting pricing implemented on the cause that transportation in this city is going to be greatly improved. It would be nice if buses were traveling between 35-40 MPH along protected bus lanes and TSP.  However, as long as we have politics that get in the way there's no way that congestion pricing will fly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No brainer policy. de Blasio is behind on this one. And so is Cuomo on the millionaire's tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trife86 said:

I'm up for the idea of congestion pricing or traffic restrictions, lots of cities in the EU do such things 

Yeah because they understand the idea of “finite space” and the importance of public transportation.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone actually remember the details of Cuomo's plan? He'd make the FDR above the Brooklyn Bridge not part of the scheme, which means it would be stuffed 24/7 by people trying to leave Brooklyn/Queens/Long Island without paying tolls. So you can say goodbye to any reliable express bus service on that road.

Expanding the HOV lane network would be a much more worthwhile task than congestion pricing, which will have a minimal effect upon traffic volumes on average Manhattan streets, considering the amount of Taxi/Uber/Lyft and commercial vehicles that currently use them, and would continue using them regardless of congestion pricing.

Congestion pricing could be tolerable if the Whitestone/Throgs Neck/RFK & Staten Island bridges become toll-free. But the TBTA (MTA Bridges & Tunnels) and the PA would never agree to do that.

Edited by P3F
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

A quicker ride means less scheduled running times for express buses. Would the TWU really allow cuts to running time and thus bus operator pay? Methinks not.

Um, then they wouldn't have allowed the SIM changes... Cmon now

I don't know how many times we have to keep to telling you this: The bus operators want less scheduled runtimes 

  • Like 1
  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuomo should allow NYC to allow for referendums like in California, also does buffalo have to come to Albany begging for this and that etc?

Edited by BreeddekalbL
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Um, then they wouldn't have allowed the SIM changes... Cmon now

Honestly....

I mean what collective of blue, white, gray, pink, or green collar workers is going to willingly advocate for more physical, mental (or both physical & mental) work?

I would gladly take the salary I'm making now, working an 8 hour day over a 12 hour day & laziness aint got shit to do with it !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Wasn't there an article that recently said that congestion pricing was not a silver bullet

Yes, and I'd happen to agree with it, but at the same time, there is no other real funding source so the chances of it happening seem to be greater by the day. Congestion is worsening, in part because the DOT doesn't give a damn and keeps narrowing every damn street that they can with bike lanes and pedestrian plazas.  Polly Trottenberg doesn't care. As long as she can ride her bike around with her biking buddies.... To hell with everyone one else's commutes. See a pattern here?

Photo655web.jpg

B3-BG627_NYBIKE_GR_20180730123239.jpg

43386904421_dcc01cd4f9_o.0.jpg

 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yes, and I'd happen to agree with it, but at the same time, there is no other real funding source so the chances of it happening seem to be greater by the day. Congestion is worsening, in part because the DOT doesn't give a damn and keeps narrowing every damn street that they can with bike lanes and pedestrian plazas.  Polly Trottenberg doesn't care. As long as she can ride her bike around with her biking buddies.... To hell with everyone one else's commutes. See a pattern here?

I agree, Polly is a transitalt stooge and they are making policy,

Like I I said earlier Cuomo needs to make legal a way for NYC to hold a referendum and a way we don't have to depend on Albany no more, los Angeles is building transit and laughing at us

Edited by BreeddekalbL
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I agree, Polly is a transitalt stooge and they are making policy,

Like I I said earlier Cuomo needs to make legal a way for NYC to hold a referendum and a way we don't have to depend on Albany no more, los Angeles is building transit and laughing at us

That would take a constitutional convention, which we rejected last year, and the next one is due in 19 years. So don't hold your breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

That would take a constitutional convention, which we rejected last year, and the next one is due in 19 years. So don't hold your breath.

also why is it that nyc has to go begging to albany to do anything and other cities like buffalo and syracuse dont?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

also why is it that nyc has to go begging to albany to do anything and other cities like buffalo and syracuse dont?

It's the State Constitution.

Technically the State can crush Buffalo and Syracuse as they please, but only New York is universally hated in Albany.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Can you quote the article since the paywall limits me

First thing’s first: Why does the state have so much say over the city’s affairs? 

Blame the ungainly, epic and often convoluted New York Constitution, which at more than 55,000 words, is 12 times longer than the original United States Constitution, pre-Bill of Rights. In particular, the focus here is on the state’s Article IX, which presents the concept of “home rule” — which defines the “rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to” local governments — and, in the same breath, also outlines the state’s duties and powers over local governments, including their very creation.

The leverage over local issues is rooted in a 1929 case, Adler v. Deegan, and a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo, which posited that if there was “substantial state interest” in a law targeting the “property, affairs or government” of a local government, then the Legislature was within its rights to act. And that can encompass a lot, including things like mayoral control of the city’s schools and congestion pricing, both of which have been the subject of battles in Albany in recent years.

Another doctrine — pre-emption — also limits home rule power, providing that a local law must cede “when it collides with a state statute,” according to a 2016 report on the issue from the New York State Bar Association.

Have there been attempts to change that dynamic?

Certainly. Article IX was wholly amended in 1963 with the purpose of trying to boost the role of local governments, including enshrining the aforementioned “rights, powers, privileges” etc., in its first section. And the home rule provision has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and legal arguments.

But the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has repeatedly upheld the state’s authority over localities.

“Despite Article IX’s intent to expand the authority of local governments, Home Rule in practice has produced only a modest degree of local autonomy,” according to the Bar Association report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Italianstallion said:

First thing’s first: Why does the state have so much say over the city’s affairs? 

Blame the ungainly, epic and often convoluted New York Constitution, which at more than 55,000 words, is 12 times longer than the original United States Constitution, pre-Bill of Rights. In particular, the focus here is on the state’s Article IX, which presents the concept of “home rule” — which defines the “rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to” local governments — and, in the same breath, also outlines the state’s duties and powers over local governments, including their very creation.

The leverage over local issues is rooted in a 1929 case, Adler v. Deegan, and a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo, which posited that if there was “substantial state interest” in a law targeting the “property, affairs or government” of a local government, then the Legislature was within its rights to act. And that can encompass a lot, including things like mayoral control of the city’s schools and congestion pricing, both of which have been the subject of battles in Albany in recent years.

Another doctrine — pre-emption — also limits home rule power, providing that a local law must cede “when it collides with a state statute,” according to a 2016 report on the issue from the New York State Bar Association.

Have there been attempts to change that dynamic?

Certainly. Article IX was wholly amended in 1963 with the purpose of trying to boost the role of local governments, including enshrining the aforementioned “rights, powers, privileges” etc., in its first section. And the home rule provision has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and legal arguments.

But the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has repeatedly upheld the state’s authority over localities.

“Despite Article IX’s intent to expand the authority of local governments, Home Rule in practice has produced only a modest degree of local autonomy,” according to the Bar Association report.

You can also blame the City's fiscal meltdown back in the 70s as well.  When they City essentially went broke (lol), the State stepped in and came to the rescue.  It seems like since that time, the State has had more of a say over what the City should be doing because the thinking is hey, you guys weren't fiscally sound in the past, and you needed the State to come in and rescue you. Kind of like the parent coming to the rescue of a kid that can't manage his finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2018 at 1:09 PM, bobtehpanda said:

That would take a constitutional convention, which we rejected last year, and the next one is due in 19 years. So don't hold your breath.

IIRC, the legislature can propose an amendment and put it to voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deucey said:

IIRC, the legislature can propose an amendment and put it to voters.

This is technically true, but you'd be asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is technically true, but you'd be asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Could the council vote on some something that they want to invoke on to a referedum and invoke the "home rule" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Could the council vote on some something that they want to invoke on to a referedum and invoke the "home rule" 

Nope. Lots of court opinions in NYS that made 'Home Rule' as a concept drastically different from reality.

(43 states have, to use a britishism, devolved control of Home Rule to municipalities, but NYS is more committed to emulating the UK model of central government control than the rest of the US would even consider.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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