Comments on: What’s the better idea?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:15:07 +0000

Well, the Federal government was willing to throw millions of dollars at the MTA if Congestion Pricing had been approved. But who do we have to blame for that? These same local politicians.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:13:47 +0000

I couldn’t have said it better myself, Ben. It’s abundantly clear that most of the people opposed to this toll proposal have not even bothered to read how it’s going to work.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:36:30 +0000

I don’t understand why people are so resistant to understanding how this is going to work. There aren’t going to be toll-collection booth plazas. There will be high-speed E-ZPass lanes and traffic cameras for those without E-ZPass. It will have a negligible impact on traffic and there won’t be back ups into the neighborhood. This just another annoying Red Herring argument.

By: cmdrtebok

cmdrtebok — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:34:31 +0000

Oh and if Detroit is going to get money for their outdated business models, why can’t the MTA get a break? The BMT subway operated as a money making business for its entire run, what happened?

By: cmdrtebok

cmdrtebok — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:33:05 +0000

I got a good reason. As someone who lives at the foot of the Queensboro bridge, the traffic rolling through here is already unbearable this is going to create 24/7 noise. But I know that is super personal oh well. Seriously though where are they going to place these toll plazas? How long is it going to take them to build it? It seems to me camera enforcement for congestion pricing on the grid is a better idea. Thats where the problem is anyway.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:12:01 +0000

I agree that peak-hour tolls would be more agreeable, but we’re left with the plan that we’ve got.

As for additional service to underserved neighborhoods, that’s in the Ravitch Plan, too. In fact, the Ravitch plan mandates new service to these neighborhoods BEFORE the tolls are implented on the East River bridges.

As for the “5 commuter rail lines,” I wasn’t referring to Brooklyn specifically in that example, but rather the entire of the outer boroughs.

By: Boris

Boris — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:38:38 +0000

These are all good points, but your description of Felder’s little guy is somewhat contrived. The sad truth is, outside of rush hour it is often cheaper to drive to Manhattan than to take transit. The only form of transportation we have that comes close to matching the car for comfort and convenience is the express bus, but at $10 for the round trip it is equal to the toll. For Staten Island residents, who pay $4.98 for the bridge, it is cheaper to drive even after accounting for gas and wear on the car. (Assuming free parking, but again, I’m talking about off-peak hours).

The only time driving truly doesn’t make sense financially is the time congestion pricing would be in effect, roughly 6 am to 6 pm weekdays. Which is why I would prefer congestion pricing or variable tolls over flat tolls.

Another problem is, income from congestion pricing was originally intended to include additional service to underserved neighborhoods. (And where did you get 5 commuter rail lines in Brooklyn?) Now it is clear any additional money would be barely enough to keep the status quo. So while I support the Ravitch plan since it’s the best we’ve got, we have to understand that underserved areas will continue to be underserved, and some other concessions have to be made, such as loosening rules for gypsy cabs or providing park and rides near key outer borough transit stops.