Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Mayor Bloomberg returned from Sun Valley's media mogul conference to stump for his congestion pricing program at three churches yesterday. And today he's headed to Albany, as the congestion pricing program will be discussed by the Legislature. The Bloomberg administration has pointed out that the federal Department of Transportation is pretty willing to give $537 million in funding to NYC if the concept of congestion pricing is passed by Albany lawmakers, but the deadline for that money is today.
The NY Times notes how after his visits to churches in Brooklyn, Queens and Harlem, Mayor Bloomberg "cast the possibility of missing the deadline in stark tones" while speaking with reporters. He implied that other big transit projects, like the Second Avenue subway, bus expansion plans, and JFK airport-downtown Manhattan rail link, could be jeopardized and that other businesses might leave if congestion pricing is not passed.
Congestion pricing supporters and opponents both held a press conferences at City Hall yesterday. Supporters questioned why the state wasn't willing to take the $537 million to better the air and mass transit. Opponent State Senator Ruben Diaz of the Bronx said, "Who is going to show me that the people in the South Bronx suffering from asthma will not be suffering after the mayor's plan?" while Assemblyman Richard Brosky said there isn't enough support for the plan, "No one is going to get bribed into accepting a bad idea."
The State Senate drafted a bill on Friday to help usher congestion pricing through, and Governor Spitzer reportedly "onvened a last-minute negotiating session to try to finalize a deal " for congestion pricing and other lingering Albany issues. As it happens, Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, widely seen as the man who is standing in the way of the plan (Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Governor Eliot Spitzer support it), will be meeting with some Assembly members in Manhattan today while the Mayor is in Albany.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Can this just get passed already? This is one of those pieces of legislation that is inevitable. Manhattan is only gonna get more packed with cars and something already needs to be done. Just pass the damn thing.
I'm a supporter of congestion pricing,
BUT, I'm not a supporter of this plan.
Get one done right and not one forced down our throats due to a deadline. Who's fault is that? Mr. Mayor???
I am not a supporter of the congestion pricing because I have a car in Manhattan. It will be bad because if you need to drive in the area you will be charged $4 a day. So everytime I move my car for alternative side parking, I could be charged $4. That is so bad because I already pay a high cost of living just to live in the area. How about banning out of state cars from driving in the area?
It is still unspeakably retarded to charge residents of a city a price to get to other parts of the city. Boston doesn't charge people to go across the Charles River.
Residents who pay city income tax should be exempt. Do that first, then whatever.
Tkaisen: You really aren't getting charged for traveling from one part of the city to another, you're actually being charged to travel by CAR from one part of the city to another.
This is just something we have to do. The city has been increasing in population quite steadily, and we just don't have room for all the people and all the cars. Like it or not, car travel is a luxury in NYC, so it deserves a luxury tax. Something has to budge, and I say the cars go.
Everybody who lives in NYC pays taxes to keep up the streets, maintain the Subway, keep parks in decent shape, etc. Charging people that drive is no different from charging people to use the subway.
Why would you want to both pass up the revenue this would generate AND ban out of state cars (even more retail revenue for nyc)? if you give manhanttan residents a break, all the other boroughs would want a break, then other commuters would want in on the exemption status.
Not one of the naysayers has proposed a reasonable alternative. it may suck for some people, but something has to be done. I disagree with the mayor on pretty much everything, but fully support him on this.
Manhattan is prime real estate, you pay more to live here, you should pay more to drive here.
I don't trust Bloomberg and his plan. Plain and simple. There are too many vague details and no real implementable solutions.
Why tax the residents of Manhattan who already pay a parking tax? Make no mistake, this is the mark of the beast.
Maybe he should have asked Staten Islanders how we feel about this. We will be the most screwed of all. We already have to pay for a bridge every time we leave the island. There's no getting around tolls for us and that's not the case for every other borough in the city. Now we are going to have to pay a congestion fee on top of all this? If you're going to pull this BS on us you better be prepared to put a subway line directly to Staten Island to give an actual viable transportation alternative to Manhattan. Either that or let us how our cars.
Manhattan is prime real estate, you pay more to live here, you should pay more to drive here.
You do... you have a whole extra section of payroll with-holdings in New York City, along with a whole extra section of your State TAx forms. Isn't there also like an 18% parking tax already in place?
You really aren't getting charged for traveling from one part of the city to another, you're actually being charged to travel by CAR from one part of the city to another.
That's somewhat a ridiculous hair to split. If subway travel was either easy, convenient, or dependable from the outer boroughs, you'd have a point.
Even if you doubled the prices being quoted, I'd be in full support of this plan. Automobile traffic in Manhattan is insane, and the only thing that will make it less so is having fewer cars enter the island. Congestion pricing is, as Alex mentioned, inevitable anyway. It has to happen, so I'm all for just getting it done.
No, Bloomberg's proposed implementation is not perfect, but no implementation will ever be perfect, and the simple truth is that it's often more important to get SOMETHING in place than to bicker endlessly over exactly what that something should be.
#10: You don't "have to pay for a bridge every time we leave the island," because you can take the ferry for free. You don't have to pay a cent unless you opt to move a car in addition to yourself. And if it's inconvenient for you to move yourself without a car, well, it's inconvenient for me when you bring your car to Manhattan. Something's gotta give -- I nominate you.
I am all for congestion pricing. However, as a resident of downtown Brooklyn, I can tell you that every outer borough neighborhood in close proximity to Manhattan is going to turn into a parking lot, increasing traffic and the very same pollution Bloomberg is trying to save Manhattan from. The plan as proposed has too many problems and too many consequences for those of us who rely on the subways to get to work. Increase subway and bus service first in distant borough neighborhoods, then congestion pricing can become workable.
and the simple truth is that it's often more important to get SOMETHING in place than to bicker endlessly over exactly what that something should be.
No, that's exactly what you shouldn't do. How about the government do something efficiently for once?
There are just way too many automobiles and trucks vying for the same tiny amount of space...not just in Manhattan either. This city's infrastructure just isn't built to handle the amount of traffic throw at it. We're operating on mid-century infrastructure with modern (large) vehicles. This legislation is long past due. It may not be perfect, but pass it now, and hammer out the details over time.
I am all for congestion pricing. However, as a resident of downtown Brooklyn, I can tell you that every outer borough neighborhood in close proximity to Manhattan is going to turn into a parking lot, increasing traffic and the very same pollution Bloomberg is trying to save Manhattan from.
I too am a Brooklyn resident, and agree completely, but still support the plan. I realize that even though I'm not a car owner, we all have to make temporary sacrifices for the good of everyone, and dealing with this aspect of the problem is my way of doing so. As one of the posts above mentioned, no plan is perfect, but something has to be done immediately. We can spend the next 10 years "studying" the problem, but that will just result in another imperfect plan.
[3] wrote:
This is the problem. Everyone is evaluating congestion pricing based on whether it's convenient for THEM or not, not based on whether it's good for the city. Like the guy who was quoted in one of the articles who said (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) "well, if they pass this I'll have to take the train." Yes, that's the point. Sometimes some of us have to accept a little bit of inconvenience for the sake of the greater good."This city's infrastructure just isn't built to handle the amount of traffic throw at it."
Yes! this it what it comes down to. Again, can anyone come up with a better plan for the time being? Or do we just keep needledicking in finding a solution?
Not to dismiss the concern, but isn't Downtown Brooklyn, especially right around the bridge, a parking lot already? We're not even looking at the additional traffic from the Atlantic Yards project yet.
I ride in from Crown Heights and its pretty much solid cars the entire trip down Bergen to Smith. I don't drive but it looks like there isn't much of anywhere to park to begin with. I don't think there's any more than 2-3 open spots at any one time on my block and I'm back by Franklin Ave.
Anyone attempting to ditch their car and take the train just across the bridge is going to be very disappointed. I just hope they're wise enough to clue in that its not going to work, they're going to have to take the train the entire way in or bite the congestion charge.
what ever happened to carpooling?
that idea worked in some other states, they even have an area for single passenger drivers to pick up additional people.
This plan is too convoluted and vague. Get a simple plan in that works then add in improvements or changes.
Don't fall for another LIE. Lies don't work.
and, don't fall for the money trap. anytime you hear free money, all the vultures will come knocking and will have their hand out. anyone remember the PVB scandal????????????????
The plan is not perfect, but they need to pass this to get the Federal money, then they can fine-tune.
There needs to be resident permit parking in outerboro nabes like BH so they don't turn into parking lots. And at least some commercial vehicles should be exempt. And I think the idea of paying $4 to move around Manhattan probably requires more discussion. But pass it, now. The point of the plan is to stop people from commuting by car into Manhattan, which there is no reason for. There is one word for people who drive to work into Manhattan, and that is selfish.
And BTW, the $4 to move the car on alternate-side days is sheer nonsense, it's already been discredited. So to spread a false rumor is just demagoggery.
Call Silver's office and tell him what you think: Two one Two, three 12- one 420
Where's all the money from cigarette tax?
We don't need congestion pricing... Just make less car lanes and more bike lanes.
Why do we need more money taken from us to reduce cars... just reduce car lanes!!! So simple!
Less roads for cars = less cars.
The traffic you sit in going nowhere will be a steep enough price for most people to choose the train instead.
This is just another way to suck money. (watch the subway fare skyrocket afterwards)
where's the money from cigarette tax?
Money is not a necessary factor in the traffic equation.
One lane of every avenue for bikes only, seperated by jersey barriers. It's that simple.
Stop choking us.
Where's the money from cigarette tax?
i'm sorry #24, as much as i too would like to believe that less lanes for cars = less cars, i know that less lanes for cars will = more gridlock, honking horns, traffic and most definitely not fewer cars.
bad plan. are we suppose to trust the cops or the brownies to not give us tickets for moving our car during street cleaning? how do they know the car parked there was from a legal space into another legal space.
Get rid of the $4 to drive within Manhattan, let's work on the bridges and tunnels first. that's easier to implement.
as mentioned before, once people hear money, the freaks come out with plans to used wi-fi, more ez passes, cameras, scans, fingerprints, vin numbers
databases etc.
Some of you have some really funny ideas on 'increasing' population in Manhattan and the city. Over the last 30 years the population of New York City has fluctuated from between 7.8 and 8.2 million people.
Another fun fact about population in Manhattan: Between 1970 and 2000, the population went from 1.5 million to 1.48 million to around 1.53 million where it is today. Bunk fucking argument.
In the 80's and early 90's before all the traffic synchronization started, there was almost chronic gridlock..and I mean real gridlock, not the 3:30 in the afternoon-trying to get to the Holland Tunnel gridlock..which still moves. During the Christmas season, areas in midtown..hell the entirety of midtown would literally seize.
Everyone complained then, but everyone at the same time shrugged it off. What's different about now?
Oh yeah, lots of whiney white people and a Mayor that wants to fleece the drivers in the city for even more cash. I sure as hell feel bad for all those delivery guys and taxi drivers looking to make a living, because they're the ones whose asses this will be taken out of.
The only way I would support this is if the tolls on the major crossings (GW, TN, WS, TB, Ver.) were all relieved. I'm sick and tired of paying for your subway service as it is just to go visit relatives.
Yeah, that's right. Fuck you!
-Ph
Thanks number 24. We'll just blow up several of the bridges into manhattan. That'll reduce the number of cars in the city!
Anyone who has even taken an entry level economics course would understand that congestion pricing is just the most efficient and fair way to allocate a scarce resource (roads). The same way that people need to pay to take the subway, drivers should pay for the luxury of driving into manhattan.
All this mayor wants is more money.
Who really thinks - after he tried to build a stadium in Manhattan - that he cares AT ALL about pollution.
I count myself as someone against pollution and against this supposed plan to help our health, and a someone for clean air and for Senator Ruben Diaz - - who is one of the only elected officials in the Bronx with the courage to stand up question NYC's bozillionaire Mayor and his attempt to grab more federal cash.
#25 -> What would deter you more from bringing your car into manhattan: sitting in gridlock for hours, or paying 8 bucks? (you post actually supported my argument)
If _every_ time you brought your car into manhattan, it was simply ineffective... well, you'd stop.
And we wouldn't have another way for them to just take money away from us.
One lane of every avenue for bikes, separated by jersey barriers.
Where's all the money from the cigarette tax?
Money won't stop cars. Stopping cars, stops cars.
Ph, #27 -
The congestion charge is not "fleecing" drivers. Drivers would be paying for what they are using - space on our crowded roads.
#27: why do you think taxi drivers will be hurt? taxis won't be charged at all under the plan. and they'll be able to move around faster and will have more customers, so this is actually a windfall for them. or have you just not been paying any attention to the details of the plan?
All the plan really does is add tolls to all the free entry points to Manhattan. Get it passed.
I already pay for usage of the roads in the city by the Tolls I have to pay just to get into the city from any points north or West (which is often, due to many factors).
In fact, when I drive in for work, day in and day out, not even touching Manhattan, I end up paying more per ride, even with EZPass by multiples than anyone using a train.
So if I have to, by some off chance, go from one of the boroughs into the polis, I get charged 3 times instead of 2.
How is that Equitable?
-Ph
#34: Oh, I get it now -- you're a communist! "To each according to his needs" and all that.
Well, I have some bad news for you. This is America, and here we use supply and demand to allocate scarce, expensive resources. The streets of Manhattan have long stood as a bizarre exception to that principle, but Bloomberg is finally trying to set that right.
You want a plot of land? Pay for it! And if a lot of people want land, it's gonna be expensive. Hard to increase the supply of land.
You want to hire a plumber? Pay him! And if everyone else in town wants a plumber that day too, it's going to cost you big bucks.
You want to drag 1000+ lbs of steel around Manhattan? Pay as much as the market will bear! This ain't the Soviet Union, after all.
34, the tolls you pay are meant to pay for the road or bridge or tunnel they're on. The toll for the Holland Tunnel is just that; to pay for the Holland Tunnel. The tolls on the Jersey turnpike are to pay for the turnpike. The roads in manhattan at this point are untolled and free to travel on. This must change or traffic will continue to pile up.
"I end up paying more per ride, even with EZPass by multiples than anyone using a train."
Isn't that the point? The city wants to encourage people to use public transport not drive around the region in their individual cars.
Where's the money from the cigarette tax?
To #35 (and I am not #34)
Communist? You sound like a reactionary dummy who can't tell the difference between the Constitution and Capitalism. America doesn't = Capitalism. Libertarian Capitalist "free market" dupes are the best friend of the people who want to take over this country and rule it from the shadows. Get a life and while you're at it, read a better book or better yet, think for yourself.
Red baiting in 2007!? Boy, are you out of touch.
The whole Congestion Pricing scheme is just a more sophisticated pork barrel set-up for Bloomberg and his constituents (the already rich). The awful part of it is the insinuation that if you are not for it then you are not for the environment. (a further insult to us all)
Hey [37] - ok. We get it. You can stop now.
#38 (and I am #35): I completely agree that red baiting is out of date in 2007. That's because these days you almost never encounter anyone seriously pushing for a Marxist economy. That's why it's so freakish and jarring to hear someone arguing that it should be free to drive down the street in Manhattan. It's sort of like hearing someone gripe about how men no longer wear fedoras or something.
And in case my tone in the other post didn't make it screamingly obvious, I don't actually believe that America = Capitalism. That would be as laughably extreme/idiotic as the argument that no one should have to pay to drive down 34th Street.
35: Nice bait there jackass. We don't live in Libertopia.
36: No, the tolls I pay do not go wholly to bridge reconstruction. In fact according to the Interstate Highway Act, since they're all Interstate shield designations they're subject to the 90/10 split funding system..which means that the Federal Government covers 90 percent of the costs of upkeep and expansion of said roadways.
The vast majority of toll collection on cars goes back into the MTA's coffers which, in turn, goes into funding the mass transit options whether it be busses or trains, both of which operate at a loss as it is because the MTA can't raise fares without everyone in the city having a fucking aneurysm.
But continue to take it out on me, the guy who actually contributes tax dollars in the form of business and personal spending in the 5 boroughs.
Like I said above, I would have no problem with this, if they un-tolled the major crossings out in the outerboroughs..all of which get MUCH more usage than the free east river crossings. That will not happen though because no one in the city will pay 6 bucks to get on the subway.
39: Exactly.
-Ph
41
Oh, I get it. It doesn't even occur to you that there is something wrong with money being the common denominator of true value (both individual and public). You just observe that that's the way it is and that's enough for you. You think of yourself as a realist, eh? Thanks for the reality check. Now lets work together to change that.
With all due respect to our Jewish friends, but is America really ready for a Jew in the White House? As if the world doesn't hate us enough already...LOL
Does anybody know what the plan is for motorcycles? Would we be charged the same fee as cars?
hope not
PH-You are a genius, probably the only one with your brain commenting here.
It's funny to remember how traffic was 20 years ago, when their was real gridlock.
Bloomberg Sucks.
Ha Ha, Speaker silver wonders if there ever was a deadline.
We caught you in your lie bloomberg, you can't force another one of your plans on us again.
NO West Side Stadium, NO Olympics, No fly by night Congestion Plan without oversight.
What's the hurry? bub, If it's a good plan let's see it, but there's too many questions.
I think the mayor needs to fix a few problems with his plan before passing it. But he needs to be allowed to get it examined by academics, economists and traffic modellers.
I seriously think we need some London economists to take a look at his plan. It's not that the economists are better in London than nyc, its they aren't living here and have no special interest in what happens with the plan. I'd like a Pareto optimal congestion plan. Our mayor is probably smart enough to know what that actually means.
As a lifelong Democrat I can guarantee that I'll be voting straight down the Republican ticket come next election. Those in the Legislature represent the worst side of incompetence and are shivs for the rich.