Gothamist: Best City Hall Idea Ever: Paying to Drive in the City!

online backgammon

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:07:39 -0500

online backgammon - online backgammon The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful and which never will grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain

online backgammon

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:07:07 -0500

online backgammon - online backgammon It's a very *__UN*lucky week in which to be took dead. -- Churchy La Femme

prilosec

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:54:27 -0500

prilosec - prilosec He hath eaten me out of house and home. -- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"

prilosec

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:54:14 -0500

prilosec - prilosec You are dishonest, but never to the point of hurting a friend.

online backgammon

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:24:31 -0500

online backgammon - online backgammon You need no longer worry about the future. This time tomorrow you'll be dead.

online backgammon

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:24:09 -0500

online backgammon - online backgammon You'll be called to a post requiring ability in handling groups of people.

online backgammon

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:23:40 -0500

online backgammon - online backgammon You had some happiness once, but your parents moved away, and you had to leave it behind.

title loans

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:49:40 -0500

title loans - title loans A visit to a fresh place will bring strange work.

title loans

Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:49:15 -0500

title loans - title loans If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading it at all. -- Oscar Wilde

your sister's gay boyfriend

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:32:21 -0500

Scott - To answer your question, yes. You don't pay if you cross into Manhattan via Queensboro, Williamsburg, Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. Like I said above, make them EZ Pass mandatory and you got yourself a de facto congestion charge.

Scott

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:24:48 -0500

This is very disappointing that city would even conceive of this simply because there are already charges in place to enter manhattan at all the bridges and tunnels (am I wrong?). Having to pay additional fares to enter specific parts of the city is just asinine and is another cheap trick to stick it to commuters. I'm no expert on city dynamics and traffic and all that, but from my observations, it seems that most of the traffic in Manhattan (at least during the day) is due to commercial vehicles, cabs, buses, and of course pedestrians! Auto commuters are an issue, but the streets are plenty full even without them. In conclusion, Manhattan is already an island, so no congestion charges. PS, I have been living for the past year in London so I have seen how this works. Its not fun.

eriq

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:06:11 -0500

I have a much simpler solution to congestion—ban parking. Think about it.

Clayton

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:55:34 -0500

Horrible idea. This is the same concept as to alleviate traffic we must build more highways and roads. Nothing will be solved; people will just end up paying the tolls. Traffic at the Triboro? Tolls? Not a problem, people still pay them. Plus, what about the people who live within the city and need to commute elsewhere in the city for work? Like one who lives in Manhattan who needs to get to Queens for work, such as I did this past summer. A car made my life so much easier, it cut my commute time from 1hr10min to 35-45mins, and I didn't have to deal with hot sweaty platforms and daily bomb scares. There was traffic, but I ran into so many problems with the subway that I was content with my car. Give me a break.

Tom

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:40:19 -0500

A great idea, long overdue. Yes, it will cause problems for people who have chosen commutes inconvenient to mass transit -- but that's the whole point, and it's a temporary issue. Over time people will reconfigure to adopt to the new rules, producing the reduction in congestion. Changing people's behavior away from the status quo will always involve making the status quo significantly less palatable than the alternative. Unless you put an extra cost on driving cars into midtown, people will always drive there up to the point where it becomes hopelessly congested. Not necessarily regressive either -- if it's the rich folks continuing to use cars paying the taxes to fund public transport, you're arguably moving funds in a progressive manner. And pollution affects all of us equally so the benefit in that aspect is spread similarly.

your sister's gay boyfriend

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:39:06 -0500

I remember there was some talk of adding toll to East River crossings. Right now, you only pay toll if you go in through Triborough Bridge or Midtown Tunnel. Wouldn't be such a bad idea to make the other bridges EZ Pass only, would it?

neil

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:24:31 -0500

stupidest. idea. evah.

rev pays

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:14:27 -0500

alex, I believe there are dispatchers at some bus stops checking when a bus arrives and tells them either to hold on a few mins or to drive away. Of course, I only see them during the rush hr. And, it is frustrating to see a bus logging along an empty ave but what can you do. You're going to get the same driver daily unless you wait for the next bus. (I only use the limited)

alex

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:57:05 -0500

Brightliner, I don't know what's worse, you actually believing the bus drivers follow the schedule or that YOU actually expect the bus to arrive at your stop at a certain time. I guess you also believe that the tooth fairy will give you a quarter for every one of your teeth. This isn't Tokyo where the train engineers crash their trains just trying to get to the station on time. Not once in my life while waiting for the bus under non-rush hr circumstances did the bus EVER arrived at the time they were suppose to.

grapeTACO

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:41:12 -0500

How about a ban on single-passenger vehicles instead? Only car-poolers, buses, taxis and trucks for light industry. It worked to lighten traffic after 9/11.

PG

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:41:02 -0500

Uh, why don't we just hike up the tolls? Isn't the current ez pass solution an attempt at congestion pricing? Just make it go all the way. What if cars into/out of NYC = $15 during rush hours in rush direction, and it goes down $2 for every person in it. And yes, add tolls to the bridges too. No free in or out.

rev pays

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:34:40 -0500

Someone said (or written in the DMV manual), driving is a privlege, not a right, and it's true. Why this city has so many drivers is beyond me, the lines at the DMV are crazy. We're not talking 2 cars per household now but four. (if you're seinfeld, fifty cars)

reason

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:34:36 -0500

Cabs and other Livery, in addition to delivery trucks which service the economy, should be exempt from this and I expect they will be. If only pay-per-ride cars like taxis and delivery trucks were on the streets they would be a LOT less congested. However these vehicles have a track record of being the most hazardous to cyclists...

Max

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:25:40 -0500

Um, as long as rich people PAY for a way arround something I got no problem with that. Or are we all intitled to limosine rides home? Same with livery and taxis- you will pay for the added cost, again, no problem with that. Sounds like a great idea.

Brightliner

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:05:23 -0500

In defense of the buses, the people complaining that they never speed up need to remember something called "schedules." If bus drivers floored it whenever they got an open street, then the same people would probably be whining that the bus came and left early so they missed it and why couldn't the damn drivers stay on time?

rev pays

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:00:46 -0500

How many disabled people drive??? they have paratransit if it's a daily type thing. Don't worry, you'll probably get a discount.

gz

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:54:54 -0500

What about disabled people who drive? They drive because it is more efficient than subway or bus and a lot easier. Also if they drive to and from a dialysis clinic 6 times a week in midtown, I get thrice screwed.

rev pays

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:37:46 -0500

The mayor just well make this happen. He supposedly takes the train to work everyday and will use that as the springboard. Then he will turn to his robin (ray kelly) who will say it's so his emergency vehicles can get to trouble spots quicker.

Brightliner

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:34:10 -0500

"Only affect people who could least afford it"? The people who could least afford it shouldn't have cars to begin with. An unlimited Metrocard is $76 a month. That's $912 a year. Every source I've ever seen says annual total cost of ownership (gas, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc.) for a car exceeds that. Hell, car insurance costs more than that. And we're not even taking into account the purchase cost of the car in the first place. Poor people shouldn't own cars in the city, period.

blah

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:29:16 -0500

I am solidly middle class, by the way. Don't drivers already pay tolls to drive on the NJ Turnpike, the Garden State Parkway and the Mass Pike? That hasn't stopped people from going to work or shopping.

donnie ocean

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:28:24 -0500

cars suck...especially cabs and limos, but especially cabs...id love to see em all gone or at least tax them for driving like total shitheads.

simon lok

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:17:24 -0500

this would be a big mistake. it would hurt nyc business. people from outside the city already think twice about coming into manhattan for shows, shopping, etc due to the cost, ticket blitzes, etc. This would largely backfire and only affect people who could least afford it. You live in NY, expect congestionm its part of the fabric and life of the city. Jen, if your unhappy, theres always kansas.

john

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:07:45 -0500

^ as spoken by a true rich bitch

Blah

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:03:23 -0500

The idea that we shouldn't do something because the rich will find some way around it or won't be affected by it smacks of a failure to look deeply at the issue. News flash: the rich will ALWAYS be able to get around most of the rules and restrictions that affect the middle class. $2 subway fares and $7 tolls will hardly crimp a millionaire's style. Neither does $3/gallon gas, $4 lattes and $12 movie tickets. The ban on certain types of caviar will hardly affect those rich enough to find away to get it delivered to their homes in Bermuda. So, just because the rich can get around something doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the other benefits. Inner city children suffer disproportionately higher asthma rates. Wouldn't fewer cars and less polution benefit them? If a commuter bus can move more quickly through traffic, doesn't that benefit those who want to get to work on time or home to see their kids? If the city can raise money through tolls to pay for road repair, doesn't that mean that the governement will take less money from people who don't drive for those same repairs? I'm not saying the rich are without blame, but to write off a reasonable proposal that is still being studied simply because rich people will be able to skirt the rules or not be affected by them is ignorant and sounds more like jealousy than sound reasoning.

ck

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:02:33 -0500

Walk around the city and see how many cars there are in traffic with just one occupant, the driver. Remove three cars for every one to fill it up with four occupants. Less traffic. Or think about the 50 cars, bumper to bumper, that one fully occupied bus represents. Anything to change the mind of the lone commuter driving to work to move toward carpooling, vanpooling, taking the bus or train is a good thing.

mike

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:01:03 -0500

This type of tax always seems like a good idea at first. Unfortunately it is a specious idea which always devolves into nothing more than an aggressive tax with no results. This is the same idea of increasing bridge and tunnel fares to discourage cars. The great, great majority of people using bridges and driving through midtown do not do so as a matter of choice. WHo would every choose to sit in Midtown traffic.They do so because they HAVE to - either because there is no viable mass transportation, or they simply need to get to a Midtown office or store or home. Those people are going to go to their homes or businesses no matter what. Now they will simply be taxed for what the other 99.9% of Americans do every day without a tax. No one every drives into the city just to "cruise" midtown. Manhattan is no London. Moreover, just try to explain to people living on the East and West sides that to get downtown, their taxi ride is going to cost an extra seven bucks simply because they have to cross midtown?! Lastly, I guarantee you that the majority of people who think this is a great idea live in Queens and Brooklyn and dont give a damn because it really doesn't effect them.

Toby

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:57:48 -0500

bookmonkey - how about Bus/Bike lanes? Also, perhaps your employer can provide showers for cyclists?

bikelane

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:54:18 -0500

Compare NYC to European cities and you'll see they have a much better bike lane system.

your sister's gay boyfriend

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:52:06 -0500

Much less controversial and a whole lot nicer thing to do would be to enforce existing traffic laws, like ticketing cars parked in bus stops and bike lanes.

n

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:46:45 -0500

A few questions I have about this: -How does it apply to livery drivers and others who make a living driving and providing a service? -What about small business with commercial delivery vehicles? how will this impact the economy in those terms? -It smacks of classism. How can it really be good if it forces the middle and lower class to do what the government thinks is best while the rich can still do whatever they damn well please? -Already mentioned, but where does the money go? Back to roads? To the MTA/public transit what we'll all be using more of? Does the paying public get a say? -and bookmonkey, why is it that you have such a loose grasp on reality? Bike lanes can carry so many more people per hour on than bus lanes it's not even funny. New York busses are a joke and that's simply common knowledge. Alex is correct, All the space in the world isn't going to fix their constantly missing lights, stopping almost every block, and just plain driving slowly even when they have the road to themselves.

s

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:33:21 -0500

one word. helicopters.

S

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:32:17 -0500

one word. helicopters.

alex

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:27:57 -0500

"The NY Times looks at how various groups are looking at using congestion pricing in NYC to encourage people to use mass transit and carpools, versus driving their cars in and thereby promoting traffic, increasing cancer-causing agents, and slowing down buses." Traffic slowing down buses?? PALEASE. There can be an open road with zero traffic and the bus would STILL be going at 2mph. I've been on bus rides where there were virtually no traffic in sight and the little old lady walking right outside was out pacing the bus. Let's just face facts, they bus drivers are just milking as much time on the road as possible making one or at most 2 trips then heading home.

bookmonkey

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:23:53 -0500

Bike lanes are a waste of space. Dedicated bus lanes are a much better idea -- they can be used year-round, by all sorts of people, and are safer on the roads than a flood of Critial Mass dorks. It's bad enough we have that crapola for a couple of hours once a month. There's a guy at work who bikes here, and he's stinky from it. I don't want the office smelling like a gym.

Jason

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:10:16 -0500

This made my heart sing! This would be wonderful for the city and I really hope Bloomberg sees this idea through!... The reduction of cancer-causing emissions alone should sell this idea... In a high density city like New York, driving is a simply ridiculous luxury that should be apropriately taxed.

layla

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:08:08 -0500

NYC is actually pretty lousy for cyclists when compared to places like Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Austin, etc. All have better safety statistics than does NYC. And lower theft rates, too, which is another factor keeping people from biking to work. Not to be antagonistic, but just because something hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Toby

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:02:31 -0500

Less cars would mean better biking, but do you really think that medians for bike lanes would work? NYC is one of the better cites for biking, I have biked elsewhere and have tales that include stitches, and getting assulted by a juvenile delinquent then hit by a car within the span of 30 minutes - stuff that never has happened to me in NYC.

l

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:40:33 -0500

They don't have to sell it to the public. They didn't exactly sell $2 subway fares to the public, but the MTA did it anyway. This will be a case of doing it first and then having people accept it.

bike

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:35:53 -0500

The congestion pricing must be partnered with other transit fixes in order to work smoothly. The subways and buses must run more regularly, and there must be dedicated bicycle lanes and lights, separated by medians.

Toby

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:34:21 -0500

Some thoughts I think that it is a good idea, but how will they sell it the public? I also see it as an use for EZPass, despite what the article says. If it increases subway ridership, that would mean more money for the MTA, which may lead to service improvement (yeah right!). If traffic lessens, a crosstown bus may be faster than walking. And the big question: where will the money go?

timbnyc

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:31:50 -0500

It's regressive, though. Wealth (or the lack of it) seems a lousy stand-in for good public policy. How about first we cut taxi service to and from the airports, and second cut down on black cars allowed to operate in the city?

b

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:12:37 -0500

that's fine if the subways get more crowded, i'd be more willing to ride my bike with less cars on the road above

Kojak

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:12:18 -0500

The ratio of Drivers to Public Transport Commuters is much higher then that of London. NY is better able to handle the traffic we get as to London, which has smaller winding roads. I don’t think it will fly. Depending on how much they will want to charge for this, most NYkrs would rather pay the extra money then take the ‘dreaded’ subways.

ed209

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:10:54 -0500

Subway's already crowded during rush hours, unless the MTA can prepare for the spike in the number of subway riders due to this bill, it might get really really crowded down below.

g

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:44:15 -0500

Congestion pricing is a great idea and has done wonders to lighten traffic in London. The difference is amazing. Yes, there will be resistance to it at first, but as the constant subway fare increases have shown, people adjust when they have to.