Comments on: MTA has hundreds of millions of reasons to support congestion pricing plan

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:19:57 +0000

Ed, you brushed off that article because,

Metro has its own self-interest at heart, not the community. An article in there must be carefully considered.

So I noted that an article in the NYP must be carefully considered, too.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:21:47 +0000

It isn’t false populist and don’t wait for this argument to play out and then insult someone. Its easy to sit on the sidelines and attack. I was right all along this is what happens to every single CPer that I talk to. Every single one.

I don’t know what you are full of because you didn’t put yourself out there. Don’t ascribe words to me that I didn’t write - I didn’t imply nor write of lowly millionaires. It is understood what I meant regarding live check to check regardless of low or middle income. Don’t put words in my mouth and then attack me for saying them. You have added nothing, nothing, to this discussion except an insult.

And I agree that the tolliing will have the same effect. That wasn’t my only argument and I concede that point. All other benefits go with tolling.

By the way, how come I can’t write that Alon Levy is an idiot but Gary can say that I am full of shit? Selective posting and anything to make you feel more secure I guess.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:49:18 +0000

I believe the best plan of the bunch would have been tolling the free East and Harlem River crossings, but the proposed modified CP plan is my second choice.

But you, Ed . . . with your false populist arguments on behalf of “lower” income people (anyone less wealthy than Bloomberg? lowly millionaires?) Would be throwing out the same canards to bash the toll plan if that was the final proposal.

I think Ben had it right - you’re full of shite.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:33:41 +0000

It is not just an opinion poll but a citation of the toll study that found that revenues generated by tolling would be double CP. If you want to find the original report it won’t be difficult. My point was that it won’t be difficult to find if a 2 minute search turned up a citation. It was conclusive and undisputed when published in the last 3 months.

CP may be an easier sell but it isn’t being sold for its benefits but for its cache. To create the effects that CPer’s are proposing, if there is a better way, why not try to sell it? I see why - because ego is involved in this by Bloomberg and he wants to make his name on this. Come on, he has a beautiful new skyscraper with his name on it. Okay, its green but its also prominent. CP is a ruse that is a shiny, glamorous way of dealing with a gritty, down-to-earth basic issue that could be and should forced upon the public as putting up those tolls on pre-existing gateways. Tolls have been going on for probably hundreds of years (private roads and all).

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:23:02 +0000

Ok. That’s a link to an opinion poll, but I found the East River Toll plan in the interim report from the traffic mitigation panel. (See pages vii-viii of the PDF.) Their discussion of the weaknesses is rather relevant, and I do like the revenue and traffic mitigation generated by East River tolls. However, for any politician in the Bronx, Queens or Brooklyn, supporting that is tantamount to political suicide. It’s much easier to sell the congestion fee than it is to sell the walling off of all of Manhattan and access routes between the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn behind a toll barrier. I see your point though.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:08:18 +0000

Here is one link and it took me 2 minutes to find.

http://www.nydailynews.com/…if_it_me-1.html

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:42:25 +0000

Can you please provide a link to the report that claims tolling works with the same outcome and lower cost? Everything I’ve seen on the subject says tolling doesn’t work nearly as well.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:41:25 +0000

I guess that means that the NYT’s hiring of Bill Kristol, a rabid conservative has now made that paper a no-read for you. If you believe that all of the reporters, hard working men and women, of the NY Post write to adhere to Murdoch’s wants, you’re limiting yourself. Some of the best LOCAL political reporters operate on that paper. I don’t agree with their editorial point of view and most of that paper is a rag. I don’t stand for the Post just as I don’t stand for the Metro. I simply cited an article that obviously you won’t read because it is in a paper that you have already put in a box in your head. I guess that is who you are and you don’t investigate other arguments and their validity. That is called self-righteousness.

And that is what CP is. If tolling works with the same outcome and lower cost, I propose that you have absolutely NO argument to stand upon. If your aim is true to reduce traffic and for green reasons, then you must agree with the studies. If you don’t then you have another agenda which is personal and not for the greater good.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:10:18 +0000

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose media spreads conservative-slanted news around the world. Its own interest is in opposing regulations that increase urban quality of life or improve the lower classes’ quality of life at the expense of the rich. Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:33:00 +0000

One last time, when I write the word “lower”, I mean “lower” than wealthy. I don’t mean “low” like you do. I write the word “lower” relative to the rich and “lower” can be applied to middle income and they will DEFINITELY be affected.

Are you crazy that people living check to check are only low income? Do you read anything regarding how much personal debt the average American has? Get out of you tower and come down to the streets and live in the real world.

Its not more green - check out the study regarding tolling that found it was just as green, saved money and reduced traffic. Again, not as glamorous for you I bet.