Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Various reports say that State Senate Democrats are dropping the plan to toll East River and Harlem River bridge crossings, which has split their party. The Daily News reports that they "are expected to unveil a watered-down MTA bailout that would keep the city's bridges free but leave less money for transit, sources said Monday night." The NY Times calls the new proposal a "short-term alternative" that still leaves unanswered questions for the MTA.
The bridge toll plan was part of a plan suggested by Richard Ravitch as a way to generate revenue for the deficit-ridden MTA and limit the severity of MTA fare hikes—around the 23-30% range— and service: Drivers would pay tolls as subway, bus and rail commuters would pay slightly higher fares and businesses pay a payroll tax. The News says, Ravitch plan "supporters call it a comprehensive, long-term plan tackling two perennial issues: keeping the transit system affordable and preventing it from sliding into disrepair and unreliability."
According to the NY Times, the Senate plan "would include a 4 percent fare increase, half of what Mr. Ravitch had proposed. It would also impose a tax of 25 cents on every $100 of payroll on employers within the 12 counties served by the authority. That would be significantly less than the 34 cents that Mr. Ravitch had proposed." It's unclear how much revenue the Senate plan would generate, but in other words, the plan is: Subway/ bus/ rail raiders pay more, businesses pony up for a payroll tax an drivers still pay NOTHING.
The State Senate believes there's enough time to go back and figure out how to help fund the MTA's construction projects later this year, but Ravitch has worried short-term solutions ignore thinking about the MTA's larger financial picture. And one person told NY1, "Something has to be done. We know that there's a deficit. We know we need to put money somewhere. I don't want people who take subways and buses to bear the brunt of the financial burden. People who drive cars have more money."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I don't drive—I just take the subways or uses. But while a small fare increase for subway/bus/rail fares *sounds* good, it's ridiculous that drivers aren't paying ANYTHING to use the MTA's bridges and roads—especially since the MTA will probably have to raise fares again anyway for capital projects.
I have a question. Does the MTA actually OWN those bridges? I thought the DOT was responsible for the bridges around the city. The impression I got was that the City owns the bridges and would funnel the funds to the MTA. if the MTA doesn't in fact own those bridges then drivers should be left out of it. no?
Can someone enlighten me?
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, Jen.
I own a car, and drive occasionally. The vast majority of the time I use mass transit, unless I'm working at three am, when it's easier to drive.
Drivers DO pay. A lot. I pay a boatload of gasoline taxes. I pay excise taxes. I pay to park at meters. I pay tolls on plenty of other roadways and bridges. I pay to register that car, and I pay all the other state and local fees to keep that sucker on the road. I pay for repairs on my car because the state and city cannot patch a pothole properly.
Have I made my point?
My car is over ten years old, and when the old girl goes to her reward, we won't replace it. I wish mass transit was safer so I could take it 24 hours a day. A single woman cannot.
To suggest that drivers don't pay enough is just plain wrong.
You actually haven't made your point. Drivers do pay many fees. But you didn't provide anything that shows drivers are paying more than what is costs for the infrastructure required to support cars.
According to one website, the true cost of a car including fuel insurance, all fees, infrastructure, effects of pollution, etc. is 1.28/mile (based on CA, so this may be a bit high). But since you have an older car, the figures should be adjusted. Zeroing out some of the items leads to a figure around $1/mile. Do you feel that you are paying that much?
Source: http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm
(Yes, I am aware that public transit is also subsidized. I am not arguing that cars should not receive any subsidy. I am addressing the OP argument for the purposes of debate.)
Yes, you do pay for the privilege of using a car, which is a luxury in this city in general.
If tolls are so unjust, why do you pay the tolls on the Thruway and the Hudson River bridges and all the other tunnels and bridges?
It simply is not far that a subway rider pays $2 to ride the Manhattan Bridge and you pay nothing.
Don't be cheap. If you can afford a car, you can afford $2 to cross the East River.
Key statement NYT: But the Senate proposal would require the transportation authority to submit to a deeper forensic auditing, a step lawmakers from both parties have demanded as a condition of laying out more taxpayer money for the authority, long dogged by waste and corruption.
Drop dead Ravitch.
My mistake—the city operates the bridges. But many city residents also rely on mass transit, so there's some city support there. My understanding is that the state hasn't been funding the MTA as much as it could. And yes, the MTA is badly managed and needs to be more transparent. Agreed.
@newsyspice—Drivers do pay many, many fees, but are those fees going to the MTA or other state/regional projects? I'm guessing the latter. City Comptroller William Thompson, who opposes East River tolls, actually proposes higher car registration fees. So the money will have to come from somewhere.
Jen, Placing tolls on the bridges would be political suicide for NYC representatives. Much the same congestion pricing would have guaranteed the end of several politicians careers. Raising the cost of commuting for motor vehicles would cause an increase in the cost of everything in the city. There are also some deeper social issues about placing tolls on the bridges. The MTA was asked to sell it's building in midtown several years ago to raise cash. But it never did. This would have generated about $300-400 million for the MTA. Why do they have any office in midtown? Nobody knows? The best thing to happen is for a thorough review of the MTA and make it more efficient. Why isn't Cuomo up the MTA's ass?
How is it political suicide? The state Senators against the tolls are framing the discussion that way, but it's just NOT true.
3.7% of Brooklynites commute into Manhattan by car; 4.2% of Bronx residents and 5.4% of Queens residents do the same. From transit-starved Staten Island, only 8% of residents drive into Manhattan (even there, almost three times as many use transit).
Nearly TEN TIMES as many residents of the outer boroughs are transit riders than drivers affected by these tolls, and they will face huge transit fare hikes without these tolls. Tell me, how is it political suicide to upset a few of your constituents with a $2 toll when without it, a vast majority of New Yorkers will suffer much more?
Are you GUESSING or are you REPORTING?
There's a big difference.
the MTA runs the biggest ponzi scheme of all. What it is the doomsday scenario in all this? they raise fares? it seems like they are going to do this regardless. They should re-instate the commuter tax rather than the bridges toll cause I don't know how the hell they would collect money on the bridges cause it would back up traffic forever and then they wouldn't even have people on those bridges. Either that or just collect money during rush hours. I can't wait for 50 degree weather so I can bust out my bike and never have to deal with this bullshit til the winter.
Reinstitute the commuter tax, and watch as businesses flee the city and workers from outside the city look for jobs elsewhere. That's exactly what we need in this economy.
"I don't know how the hell they would collect money on the bridges cause it would back up traffic forever"
High-speed toll collection would make toll booths/plazas redundant.
I don't blame you though. Had the luddites at MTA replaced all the existing toll booths by now, there might be more traction on new bridge tolls and/or congestion pricing.
Wait 'til they institute a bike tax...to pay for new police cars.
So much for "sharing the pain". It's amazing how many politicians turn tail when face to face with the Mighty Automobile.
i dont trust the MTA or the MTA union with any more money
i see turnstyle hopping in my future
that being said, cars should pay tolls on all bridges, at least during business hours, its only fair (and it wont back up traffic - we're not talking about old school toll plaza, but instead modern technology that sllows toll collection w/o stopping)
the % of constituents affected by tolls is greatly greatly exagerated by these "representatives". most of us use mass transit.
the artist formerly known as congestion pricing would have alleviated some of the MTA's shortfalls, no?
Ahem...they prefer to be addressed as HRH The Entitled American Motorist thank you very much.
It says something when a free crossing since May 24, 1883 (afaik), is considered for a new toll. It says we have no clue how to manage money and we are pissing it away.
I'd love to see the toll on the VZ abolished. It's $10 per can going toward SI, so of course people will drive through Manhattan to the free outbound tunnels.
Initial Bridge Toll - 1 cent on Opening Day, 24 May, 1883, 3 cents thereafter.
-Brooklyn Bridge Facts and Information
By 1910, the toll on the Brooklyn Bridge was removed
-NYCRoads.com
Took me about five minutes to Google it; keywords: "brooklyn bridge toll"
Thanks demi, I missed that, wow you google really good. Well if the toll goes into place maybe they will only double the previous one.