Comments on: The Kheel Plan 2: Electric Boogaloo

By: brian goldner

brian goldner — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:12:53 +0000

boris raises some really good points!
as a native brooklynite i agree that nyc transit is manhattan centric. I think the primary problem with that is development possibilities. Seriously. The rest of the country is full of very low density commercial/residential land, while manhattan developers are tearing down 20 story buildings to make 40 story buildings! I think development would go much smoother if someone decided to move the manhattan density into one of the boroughs (or even NJ) where there is relatively more space. In order to do so though, we need increased transportation. Currently, all but 1 subway line feeds into manhattan at some point, and that’s where the connections are best. Such transit density needs to occur in the other boroughs. In particular, the G train,and 7 Trains should be expanded. I also think light rail needs to be an option. Light rail lines running perpendicular to the current BK lines would add huge transit density.

Staten Island especially is a site for great growth. The Staten Island Light rail needs to be built today, all branches, including the one that connects to NJ!

Still, although Boris makes some good points, I think congestion pricing failed because our state congress people are cheap, feeble minded imbeciles who probably don’t want to have to pay the fee themselves, and cannot imagine their way to a better NYC.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:35:20 +0000

If you read through the entire Kheel Plan, making mass transit free and institute a large contestion fee in which all the revenue goes to the MTA would actually result in more money for the MTA and not less.

By: herenthere

herenthere — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:31:13 +0000

I do not completely support the Kheel Plan-sure, there will not be absolutely no one driving into/out of Manhattan, like Benjamin Kabak said, but driving the price up severely would likely cause a large drop in revenue. And making mass transit free? That would deprive the MTA of even more money!

By: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog » Blog Archive » Here we go again: the fare hike edition

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:52:08 +0000

[...] MTA-saving measure die in committee. Perhaps it’s time to start paying closer attention to Ted Kheel after [...]

By: Boris

Boris — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:48:48 +0000

I used to support congestion pricing, but then I read the College of Staten Island’s 2004 report on Staten Island transit. Right now, we have congestion pricing in Staten Island- it costs money to enter it by car. The agencies that profit from the tolls take this money and use it to subsidize their other projects. They do not use it to fund public transit in and out of, or within, Staten Island. The original idea, of course, was to “tax” out-of-towners who drive through from the mainland to Long Island, but in reality it is the locals who suffer the most. If congestion pricing were to be implemented in Manhattan, the same thing would happen.

Also, there is a number of other problems with congestion pricing:

1) Putting the cart before the horse. It may cost $16 to enter Manhattan tomorrow, but real transit improvements are not going to appear for decades.

2) NYC may be the Capital of the World, but it’s not the center of the world. People who live in the five boroughs may sometimes need to leave the city, and people need to come visit. I live in Staten Island but work in Central Jersey, and I have zero public transit options. Our current Manhattan-centric system does not work very well, and continuing to focus on Manhattan is detrimental to those of us who live in the outer boroughs. Plus, if you don’t want people to drive to work, let them work close to where they live. Establish office parks in each of the five boroughs. Manhattan is not the be-all end-all.

3) Adding tolls on the East River bridges will simply remove a historic injustice, wherein all ways out of Long Island are tolled, except for a few leading into Manhattan. Congestion pricing will, indeed, balance this out, but this solution leaves people with no way of getting to the continent without shelling out some big bucks. Again, the problem is a larger one- lack of mass transit connections between the disparate systems in the metropolitan area and a lack of a true bypass highway that goes around the city.

I can probably go on, but my main point is that you can’t trust the MTA to solve our problems simply by throwing money at it, especially if it fails to work together with the other regional transportation agencies.

By: Kid Twist

Kid Twist — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:13:39 +0000

I wasn’t being completely serious

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:11:40 +0000

There will never be no drivers in the city. In fact, the vast majority of drivers will continue to drive, but with congestion pricing, those who chose to drive will be paying for it. I don’t think any congestion pricing advocate expect there to be no drivers with a fee; that’s just not the way it works.

By: Kid Twist

Kid Twist — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:47:17 +0000

If congestion pricing is a complete success and has its desired effect — deterring people from driving — it will end up providing zero dollars for transit. Then how does Mr. Kheel propose to pay for his free subway system?