Gothamist: City Council Approves Congestion Pricing, 30-20

jpeditor

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:18:43 -0500

Hope all you green-weenies enjoy the higher prices you are forcing on us for EVERYTHING that is delivered into Manhattan. It's not just the $21/vehicle, its the extra bookkeeping as well. Maybe you like paying more for bread now that your precious/useless ethanol is forcing up the price of grains. And good luck seeing ANY of the extra fed money (STILL OUR MONEY) getting used right by the MTA - they have already been exposed as almost cooking the books.

glennQNYC

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:23:32 -0500

Does anyone with dreams of a pedestrian nirvana consider the impact on the city's economy? How much business is done on foot? This is a CITY, not a damn national park!

grapesodey

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:34:35 -0500

@jenchungsbra: sounds like a dream come true!

JenChungsBra

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:27:32 -0500

BTW, I live in Manhattan and don't look forward to having delivery trucks cruising the streets all night long to avoid the $21 fee. The noise they create during weekdays is bad enough, but if they're going to be tooling around in the evenings it's going to create a lot more noise later in the day when people are home trying to relax and/or sleep. How about this: Ban ALL private vehicles from the zone during CP hours. Ban taxis from cruising without passengers and create numerous taxi stands in every neighborhood. Jack up the fees for the black Lincoln Town Car services. Make all taxis be dual-stage hybrids no larger than a Toyota Camry. Eliminate those double-decker tour buses. Eliminate those skinny billboard trucks that do nothing but drive around aimlessly advertising stupid crap. Make the north-south avenues at least one lane narrower and give that space back to pedestrians or bikes. ------- TADA! Pedestrian nirvana!

JDSX

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:20:11 -0500

Why should it be cost the same for both NYC and NJ drivers to come into Manhattan. I already pay NY taxes, do they? I'm one of those people who can afford to pay the tunnel toll and already-insane parking lot prices each month to drive in. Although this idea sounds good as an idea, in practice it will just be one more revenue stream for politicians and MTA to mismanage for eternity. I'd rather deal with congestion than letting politicians milk us drier. They've been consistent in their waste, why do the sheep always think *this time* will be different?

JenChungsBra

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:16:33 -0500

"It's not a price control for public spaces. You are more than welcome to walk across the street for free anytime you wish in the congestion pricing zone. You are not your car." Yeah, I'm welcome to walk across the street any time I wish, just so long as Donald Trump's speeding limousine isn't in my way. It is ABSOLUTELY a price control in the way public spaces are used, designed to get a certain class of people to stop driving. To call it anything else is a blatant lie. It would be better to just ban cars altogether than to create even further social stratification in the place that already has the highest income stratification in the entire country. And if, as IvoryJive says, only a small percentage of cars will be deterred then let's at least stop calling it a congestion scheme and call it what it really is, a revenue scheme.

dkim2015

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:16:08 -0500

WTF

grapesodey

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:56:08 -0500

for those of you who are bringing up the fact that this will not deter wealthy people from driving their car (usually an oversized suv) into the CBD because money is no object to them - that's precisely the point. we're getting extra money out of these folks for their trips which would then fund mass transit! and i thank you, ivoryjive, for reminding people of the elements of the proposal which people are overlooking. one of the main pieces is to reduce congestion during PEAK hours, when congestion is a huge problem. and the purpose of this is not only to impact single-occupant vehicles, but also shipping goods on trucks -- many of them are clogging/polluting our roads during peak hours to make deliveries. now firms can decide whether they still need to make that delivery and have more trucks sitting in traffic, as opposed to making that delivery in offpeak hours and avoiding the charge. it's all about making people rethink both their mode and time of travel. yes, i understand that not everyone has this liberty, but for those that do, the idea is that this will change their behavior...and if it doesn't, at least they'll be paying a charge to offset the externalities of their travel choices.

1987porsche944

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:48:16 -0500

[50] - thanks for setting me straight on the effective times. I thought that was the original plan, but with my friends' complaining and whining about it, I assumed that they must have amended the plan to include later or earlier hours. It will still affect the friend who works 11 pm - 7 am, but maybe the others were jumping on that bandwagon. I think a lot of people here are being overly judgmental to the ones who drive into the city. You can't possibly know everyone's situation. Maybe try not to needlessly vilify an entire group of people. There are certain neighborhoods near Path and Metro North (and probably LIRR) stations that are already inundated with commuter parking. Wonder what will happen to those neighborhoods once this goes into effect?

JacqueMehoff

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:20:14 -0500

why do I get the feeling the people who are against this plan are the people who voted for bloomberg twice? now who is lapping what?

IvoryJive

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:14:09 -0500

That's right JenChungsBra, most people will still be bringing their smog-producing cars with them, but not freely. Now they will have to pay a fee. The point is that driving a car on public space is not a civil liberty. You still have the right to enter public space, but you can't freely do it with an automobile. You sound just like the groups of people who were OUTRAGED when cities first introduced parking meters. But it seems like that good idea caught on. And anyway, how many people do you think can afford to buy a car ($500 - $30,000+) and maintain it, pay car insurance ($250/month), pay for gas on their daily commute ($4-20/day), possibly paying for parking in the zone ($20-40/day), and can't afford $40/week to commute in between 6am and 6pm on weekdays? Probably the few people who fit into that category would qualify for the low-income deduction. The small percentage of vehicles that will be deterred won't be those who can't afford it, but those that maybe didn't really have to drive through the zone anyway - they were just doing it because it's free.

TKaisen

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:07:48 -0500

The number of people naive enough to think this is reducing any traffic is terrifying. For all you dummys who really think this money is going into some safe labeled MTA please look up "General Fund". That's where all this money will go. My God, people will lap up anything anyone tells them if it fulfills some pet peeve.

eyekantspel

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:56:59 -0500

I predict: No noticeable change in anything. No change in current traffic levels from 6am to 6pm. People who drive in the city during business hours do so because they need to. Most of it is commercial traffic, and they will simply pass costs on to consumers. Most individuals who can take public transportation already do, because the pain of driving in the city, costs of car ownership, parking, traffic tickets, etc. are huge disincentives that already exist. Small increased prices in goods (probably not so noticeable) as offsets for higher costs of delivery are passed on. Increased congestion along the boundaries of the zone-- just need a few confused motorists (not regular drivers, but tourists who will drive in and accept the cost as the expense of a casual visit) to make a mess for everyone. Service on MTA lines no better than it has been. Within a year or two, they will increase the congestion pricing because they want more money and will claim they aren't making enough to maintain the system. Just like they do now with the bridges and tunnels. It's funny/scary to me that people are so naive as to buy into a tax, believing it won't effect them, based on nothing but empty promises made by known liars. Cleaner environment and better MTA? lol. They should do air quality testing on the subway platforms-- all that peeling paint, mold and buildup of filth is probably a lot worse for your health than the air on the street.

evidiot

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:45:12 -0500

JenChungsBra wrote: I'M the idealist who thinks it's morally unfair to use price control for public spaces. It's not a price control for public spaces. You are more than welcome to walk across the street for free anytime you wish in the congestion pricing zone. You are not your car.

MFer

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:31:35 -0500

As if the real goal of this plan is to reduce traffic. I drive enough in the city. There really isn't a congestion problem. Seriously. Most of the times the traffic jams are either accident or road repair related (or crane related). Eliminate a few taxis and you will have your 6% decrease, easily. A few thoughts. -If parking in the congestion zone improves, will more people living in those areas buy cars? -How will this affect the rental car business, especially zipcar?

JacqueMehoff

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:24:03 -0500

yes, I didn't vote for the guy. he'll be shoving all his policies before he leaves office. and giving them sweetheart deals to his buddies. the poor will get the shaft.

JenChungsBra

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:11:52 -0500

"And finally, this is not a tax on your right to enter public space. You can still enter the congestion zone freely. You just can't bring your smog-producing car with you." Not true. Quite a few people will still be bringing their smog-producing cars with them. Those are people for whom $40/week is meaningless. And now they'll have an even greater incentive to do so because people who can't afford the charge will have been weeded out. Isn't that great?

wowthatsucks

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:56:42 -0500

Couldn't there can be an increase in taxis if the ones that normally work the outer boroughs and airports start working Manhattan?

JMH

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:39:25 -0500

MFer wrote:I predict: (snip) -increase of taxis offset the potential drop in traffic (snip)There can only be an increase in taxis if the city decides to issue more medallions, which certainly would seem contradictory to the stated goal of reducing car traffic.

IvoryJive

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:37:34 -0500

A lot of people commenting here haven't even read the plan and keep making the same tired arguments. Let me remind you of a few details: -It's only from 6am to 6pm on weekdays. There is no fee for people who work nights. There is no fee for shopping on weekends or holidays. -There is no fee for leaving the congestion zone. -There is only one charge per day. You will not be charged to re-enter the congestion zone on the same day. -And I think there will be no fee for drivers with handicapped license plates, and a discount for low-income drivers. In addition, I just don't know why people are saying that Jersey gets off free. They are already paying $8. The disincentive to drive is already in place. This will make it more fair on both sides of the river. And finally, this is not a tax on your right to enter public space. You can still enter the congestion zone freely. You just can't bring your smog-producing car with you.

wowthatsucks

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:34:55 -0500

NYC needs to have viable mass transit options in place BEFORE congestion pricing takes effect. The current system is overburdened as it is, imagine a 6% increase in volume on the subway & buses. Insane. Commuters from the outer boroughs that work in NJ south of the GWB get screwed because Holland & Lincoln tunnels would be in the congestion zone. Some of these folks don't have any current mass transit options. Most of the ones that can't afford it are going to drive around the zone which only moves the congestion elsewhere like the Cross Bronx Expressway as #47 mentions. Not to mention an increase in emissions since they would be driving twice the time/distance that they normally would.

sassojr

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:34:16 -0500

Couldn't have said it better than '87 Porsche and MFer.

MFer

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:04:46 -0500

I predict: -higher prices of goods to offset the business cost of tolls -increase of taxis offset the potential drop in traffic -more crowded subways -ridiculously more traffic (as if we need more) on the Cross Bronx Expressway.

1987porsche944

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:52:22 -0500

There are a lot of people who work nights; people like cooks and waiters, train conductors, nurses/admins in hospitals, second and third shift office workers who deal with companies around the world, etc. A LOT of these people (I have multiple friends and family members in this position) have had to move out of the city due to the increased cost of living and the unbalanced ratio of their yearly raises. Many of these people have moved into NJ, which by the way isn't all luxury high rises overlooking the NYC skyline. They only moved because it was more affordable to live. NJ Transit sucks like you don't believe - trains stop running around midnight, and so there is no choice but to drive a car back and forth. It is generally agreed by the people I know in this situation, that they would have no problem with taking mass transit if it was made available to them. Not everyone in NJ, CT, upstate NY, etc. are rich people who are lazy and want to drive their cars. Lower and middle class essential employees are being driven out of the city due to higher costs of living. Unfair to penalize them unless other options are at least offered. Give them a choice before vilifying them. I only ever drive into the city now to pick up handicapped relatives. There's not much of an option there! Lots of good points here. The best incentive would definitely be to upgrade the mass transit system.

JenChungsBra

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:52:15 -0500

You're not the idealist, you're pragmatic. I'M the idealist who thinks it's morally unfair to use price control for public spaces. Price controls only affect people for whom price is an issue, so while some people will give up their cars for public transit (a laudable goal that I support), wealthier drivers will continue to drive unimpeded on less crowded streets.

grapesodey

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:23:59 -0500

in terms of transportation, pricing is the only method that has been proven by research to change people's behavior. congestion negatively impacts the environment, the economy, and our quality of life. the externalities created by each additional driver's trip into the CBD are not even close to paid for by those driver(s). putting a price tag that accurately represents the costs (to the city/public/environment, etc.) of that trip makes an individual consider whether he/she needs to travel at that time, using that mode. for the casual visitor, he/she may realize that it makes more sense to take the path train in to go see that broadway show. to the company making the food delivery to the wendy's on 14th st, the delivery times may be altered so as to not put another truck on the road during peak hours. the purpose of this plan is not to "screw" people as so many are saying, but the price puts a true value on a person or firm's travel decisions. and for those who decide they still need to drive a vehicle into the cbd during peak hours, then they will be essentially contributing money to transportation funding...so now we're getting something out of that person that can further improve transit, and make it a more attractive option for people. maybe i'm just an idealist, but it makes perfect sense to me.

fugothamist

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:14:36 -0500

good news...next we must slash govt parking placards call this a money grab if you want, but i have no problem "punishing" lazy selfish drivers

smokedgouda

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:12:23 -0500

This is great. Fewer cars fighting for the same space. More people (rightly) taking mass transit. Money going to MTA for improvements.

billybob

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:26:34 -0500

this is terrible, all of these people who are for it are idiots. Why would anyone support this and actually think it's going to reduce congestion? Small businesses are hurt the most, in addition to people having to pay a toll to go to their own house. The people who it effect the most are the lifeblood of the city, but I guess all these spoiled people above who never leave Manhattan unless it's on a plane could care less.

nivek

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:09:14 -0500

This is a money grab...but at least we're sticking it to you fuckin' drivers for clogging up Midtown. I'd rather ban cars altogether, but I don't have that power.

glennQNYC

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:26:23 -0500

What works in Europe doesn't mean it will work in the United States... Ask Renault!

glennQNYC

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:24:31 -0500

This is such a damn ignorant money-grab it is disgusting.

Steven

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:07:07 -0500

LOL! Anyone who thinks congestion pricing will go to the MTA is extremely native.

sassojr

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:45:47 -0500

@ nymichi Granted I don't know much about the public transportation systems of London or Stockholm but I figure they're in much better shape and more efficient than those here. Additionally, those cities are bike friendly while NYC is most decidedly not. Also a lot of us are just sick of failed promises (2nd av. Subway as another example).

ribaldry

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:41:26 -0500

I am a subway musician. Therefore the increase in foot traffic will mean more money for me and my fellow troubadours. Bring it on!

streber

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:02:51 -0500

Meanwhile, here's some data on how congestion pricing has worked for the city of London, by allowing Motorcycles and Scooters to travel for free: * 30% average drop in congestion * 37% average increase in traffic speed * 12% drop in particulate matter and nitrogen oxides * 20% decrease in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions London exempts motorcycles, which is not in the New York City plan. This plan will only be effective at raising our cost of living.

nymichi

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:49:12 -0500

In London is working well, is Stockholm is working well, why here so many people see problems? Im sorry for those who has to come to the city by car because there is no mass transport where they live, but its good for so many more that use the car when they could no.. The problem is that all that money they will make should go increase the services of train/bus without increasing the prices.. Miguel

nerdkiller

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:18:25 -0500

so now when I leave Manhattan to drive to my job in queens I get to pay for taking my car off the manhattan streets. Too bad there are so few of us no one is gonna care.

blablanyc

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:00:28 -0500

Write your reps in Albany http://assembly.state.ny.us/ http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/home?openform and don't forget about the City Council http://council.nyc.gov/d3/html/members/home.shtml

arsguide

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:25:59 -0500

you've ruined this city - as it isnt enough having to circle my block for 30 minutes looking for a parking space thanks to all these shitty new 6 story high rises in what was a two story neighborhood. now you want to charge me to drive INTO MY OWN CITY - I might consider taking public transportation - even though I first would have to take a bus - just to get to the G train, which doesnt go anywhere - then from there transfer to another train - to get to where I drove today - would take an hour more than it does by car - I might even do that if I valued my time as little as it seems the people who support this plan do - I might do that knowing first hand that the city PISSES away money like you would NEVER believe, but where would I leave my car in the morning - see we have alternate side parking laws and in Greenpoint which has no poltical clout - like say Bourogh Park, Park Slope, etc - street cleaning is FOUR days a week, often at 8am - they actually expect you to sit in your car for an hour and half after the street is cleaned or you get a fine - so I can't not take my car - oh I know get rid of my car, get a bike, get up early and use it take my family around the tri-state area...oh yeah - its greatest city in the world! are you kidding?! this used to be a nice place to live - but all its value has been capitalized on and sold off right out from the people who lived here and frankly made it what it was that made so many people want to come here..but truthfully now it sucks to live here - I daydream about leaving, somewhere less authoritarian, somewhere you dont have to justify wanting to live a comfortable life - yes even with a car - and when I go, I'm not telling anyone where so no one can follow me and ruin that place to. sigh

sassojr

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:54:36 -0500

@timmyy80 200% of 3 is 6. If 2 in every 100 people have a heart attack before taking a drug, and after the drug, 1 in every 100 people have a heart attack, it has decreased your risk by half. Point being, broad statistics are deceiving. Take the M23, last year's pokey award winner at an average speed of 4 mph (and appropriately enough, in the CBD). A 37% increase in speed yields a whopping 5.38 mph trip. "A study commissioned by City Hall showing the mayor's plan would increase the average speed of vehicles in Manhattan from 8 mph to 8.6 mph" Wow, I'm really gonna notice all 6/10s of a mph in speed when I cover 2 miles (width at 14th st.) in 13.96 minutes vs. 15 minutes. And don't get me started on the "promised" transit benefit...

blablanyc

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:49:28 -0500

This is garbage. I guess we know who is not getting re-elected next time. In the next two decades, automobile polution will decline anyway because of engines using clean fuel sources. Gasoline vehicles will become unwanted and obsolete. Why should anyone pay a tax to use public streets paid with taxes? It doesn't sound Constitutional. This is going to be decided in court. Unless Albany steps in to stop it.

JacqueMehoff

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:41:53 -0500

you mean like sunday's press conference in Chinatown with the asian old ladies against congestion pricing. yeah, you want them driving.

timmyy80

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:37:57 -0500

Noticed you didn't address my first question and again brought up this working class that seems to make up the majority of drivers in your mind. And how are London traffic patterns different from New York traffic patterns? Does them driving on the left side of the road negate basic economics and traffic flow science?

Steven

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:32:55 -0500

London is NOT America. We are two completely different societies. Obviously the city council will pass this. It means more money for them! I wonder when NYC Transit will start to have off peak/peak fare structure like LIRR and Metro-North has, which is another disgusting way the government takes money from the working class.

timmyy80

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:25:56 -0500

I'd like some data on what percentage of drivers into lower Manhattan are actually low-income drivers. They seem to be brought up a lot by anti-CP demagogues. Can one of you point me to some data? Anybody? Meanwhile, here's some data on how congestion pricing has worked for the city of London: * 30% average drop in congestion * 37% average increase in traffic speed * 12% drop in particulate matter and nitrogen oxides * 20% decrease in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions Have a nice day.

glennQNYC

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:46:12 -0500

The congestion tax is an attack on business' and blue-collar workers that don't have a mass transit option by the greedy and neive who only consider themselves.

blablanyc

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:41:04 -0500

The $354 million from the Fed is nothing. Most of the transit projects in the city cost billions. They better vote "no." If the city and state needs revenue, then they should stop dragging their asses and get the WTC finished. That's $3-5 billion yearly in taxes right there.

kissel

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:35:03 -0500

Christine Quinn is yet another reason to leave NYC.

brooklyn and i

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:12:25 -0500

CHRISTINE QUINN WAS LIVING IN NJ FOR YEARS http://oprs.co.monmouth.nj.us/oprs/clerk/clerkhome.aspx?op=basic AND SHE DIDN'T COME TO NYC EVERY DAY WIT MASS TRANSIT ONLY WIT A CAR SUCH HIPPOCRATIC

IvoryJive

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:09:54 -0500

Anyone who says this is just about making money unfortunately doesn't really get that this is transportation item #10 of 16 in the 127-point PlaNYC aimed at reducing the city's carbon emissions by 30%. This proposal happens to raise money. Others, like planting 1 million street trees, cost money. The motivation for all of these ideas, many of which are JUST PILOT PROGRAMS, is a cleaner environment. I suggest some of you read this document, as it has already addressed all the concerns voiced on this page and might help you get a better understanding of the context of this proposal. You want to pay our city officials to maintain the status quo and never innovate anything? Or would you rather they actually were trying out new solutions to solve problems? Try nothing. Get nothing.

smokedgouda

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:00:31 -0500

Streber: I'll assume you are serious. Reducing the # of car lanes, ignoring the fact that the idea would go nowhere, would cause more backup - thus not resolving the whole congestion issue. I completely understand the mayor's outburst last week at critics. Their ideas, mirroring those here, are really just bizarre. It's got to be the worst "backlash" against a proposal I have heard. Even the smokers had better arguments to keep smoking.

JenChungsBra

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:59:54 -0500

"Dear angry bicyclist: reducing car lanes will not reduce congestion, it will make it worse." That's not what streber said. He/she said if you want fewer cars then have fewer car lanes. I agree. Congestion will always be there -- the cars will fill whatever space is allotted to them. Reducing car lanes is a way to fairly reduce the number of cars while avoiding a situation where the rich drive and the rest of us can go to hell. I don't mind traffic control as long as it's controlling everyone, and price controls don't do that.

billybob

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:33:36 -0500

Oh this will definitely help the congestion problem. Businesses will no longer need to come into Manhattan for deliveries! Taxis will no longer need to go below 59th st! At least when they voted on the initial toll for the GWB they made people feel better by saying it was only for one year.

Steven

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:30:50 -0500

Politicians always looking to make money off the public anyway they can.

tblake

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:19:39 -0500

So it seems many of you guys think that "Congestion Pricing" is going to reduce traffic and improve public transit. HA HA!! Chumps!

chico0100

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:18:33 -0500

Good luck.....Sheldn (A clerk left off the "O") Silver will kill it. Can someone explain why this guy, aling with Joe Bruno have so much power? All they care about is lining their pockets.

GordonTaylor

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:17:17 -0500

It's a bad idea, I don't like it at all. .45 Caliber Politics

streber

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:16:52 -0500

@smoked gouda: If I reduced the amount of space on all of NYC's street to be only the size of 4 cars... Then, yes, those cars would be caught in congestion. But, it would only be 4 cars. The majority, would choose not to drive... wouldn't you? Seems like more of a deterrent than 8 bucks. @zstone: Ff there's no reason to assume traffic will continue to decline, then what's the point of this plan? People don't dislike the trains and buses because they prefer their cars. They dislike them because they don't work well. If you ride the trains during rush hour you know that because of the express/local setup we have, we already are at the point that express trains have to wait in-between stations. This happens every morning. Let that sink in: There are already too many trains at rush hour. NO amount of money can fix this. Forcing more people to take trains will only make this worse. If you want people to take trains, make them a viable option. Don't just tax us into submission.

zstone

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:02:54 -0500

Please, "less" is used for unquantifiable things like traffic, whereas "fewer" is used for quantifiable things like cars. Anyway, there's no reason to assume traffic will continue to decline after the initial implementation period. Also, the cost to consumers will be negligible. And even though traffic may only be reduced by six percent or so, six percent is better than nothing. The more people get used to riding trains and buses, the better off our society will be.

smokedgouda

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:00:50 -0500

Dear angry bicyclist: reducing car lanes will not reduce congestion, it will make it worse.

streber

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:50:16 -0500

I am not a driver. I am a bicyclist. I oppose this plan, because I see it for what it is: a new revenue stream. If this plan works, then it will generate less and less income (as less cars come into manhattan), leaving a _deficit_. Where will the next round of money come from? I really resent that the city is using the bicyclists as a scapegoat for this one. I also resent the bicycle community that isn't realizing it is being used. If you want less cars, reduce car lanes. If you want more bikes, make safe, separated bike lanes. Bloomberg is playing this as something you can opt out of. You can't. Any successful businessman is going to pass the cost of commuting into the city onto you, the consumer. This is a tax on consumers. Bloomberg was against a tax on people earning more than a million a year, but supports this. Also, this plan should take into account motorcycles, etc (like London does), but this totally ignores them. I also resent that they are using fear ("You want your commute to get worse?!?") to gain support from working people. Stop the smoke screening: This is not about congestion. This will not make life better for bicyclists. Your commute sucks because the MTA is already improperly using all the money it gets... you want to give it more money?

JacqueMehoff

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:43:18 -0500

Bring back the commuter tax. easy peasy.

kissel

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:37:03 -0500

when/if this passes all you fools will finally realize you are guaranteed higher subway fares. We've gone through this dance before but with slightly different scenery. basically the state/city /fed gov't will reduce the normal funding they give to transit citing financial conditions. This will never come back and the main source of revenue will be congestion fees and of course fares (and that is if none of it gets eaten by new bureaucracy). we learned just last week that all the service benefits from the last hike will not be coming. i love how people can be continuously fooled with the same shell game - just wrap it in a pretty environmental wrapper... smart.

smokedgouda

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:22:26 -0500

This isn't about NY vs. NJ. It's about decongesting the Manhattan CBD and encouraging mass-transit use. The main opposition to this plan is from drivers of single-occupant cars who are part of the problem.

JacqueMehoff

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:18:31 -0500

how bout implementing a carpooling plan? count how many single driver cars there are in Manhattan. like jcb mentioned the money ain't coming out of the commuters pocket, he'll just expense it and the company will pay it because they feel that he/she's a valued employee. only suckers and the poor pay for their commutation costs. and, more bike lanes, I just bought a bike and a mace carrier.

bklynd

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:16:09 -0500

I got a robo-call about this yesterday, from the police and fire unions. They oppose it - heaven forbid they have to take transit to get to their jobs. That alone makes me in favor of this measure.

JenChungsBra

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:06:13 -0500

The [potential] money from the Port Authority is meaningless in terms of reducing traffic from Jersey and providing an equal disincentive for Jersey drivers to come into the city. The drivers couldn't care less unless it's coming directly out of their pockets, so this still does not address the issue. This plan will remove NY drivers from their own streets but allow NJ drivers to continue doing what they've been doing all along.

eyekantspel

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:04:28 -0500

I, for one, can't wait for all the MTA upgrades as our city becomes a bike-friendly, clean air utopia! Thank you Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council for making our city a better place!