Congestion Pricing

longtimesloper

Not to keep going with this-but, I just wanted to say that it's not like we aren't concerned for the environment or our fellow citizens. if we truly believed that congestion pricing would even alleviate 20% of the city's congestion-we would happily pay for it. I just don't think that is the case.

Oh-and as for leisure time to post-I, as many of you, work from home.



Daver-Not quite sure how many deliveries he makes to SI-not many that is for sure.

queencallipygos

LongTimeSloper wrote: And, if the city was truly worried about congestion and not just money, they could implement carpooling plans, etc. to cut down on traffic in Manhattan!

That's...kind of what they're trying to do. They're taking a roundabout way of doing it, but the thinking is rather than trying to FORCE people to carpool, they're trying to make it look good on paper so people will decide by themselves that they should carpool.

As for your situation, I agree that your husband raising his rates would be the best solution. It's what businesses do when their operating expenses go up, and I'm sure customers would understand. (Maybe releasing some kind of note to his regular customers explaining why he's raised his rates by a dollar a trip, or whatever, would underscore the point.)

daver

Interesting reading:
http://www.edf.org/documents/7748_CP_Leg_Gaz_EDF.pdf

Dunno if I buy everything in there. Actually, I'm sure I don't. But still interesting.

Salient points for the small business delivery is that they forecast lighter traffic in all five boroughs, enabling deliveries to be done more quickly. Which would increase the amount of deliveries and profits, I should think.

*shrug*

They also forecast lighter parking problems on the edges of the congestion zone. I really doubt that, but if it goes through then we'll see. I've been wrong before.

Repeatedly, at times.

wtgirl

LongTimeSloper wrote: Well, thank you for the phone numbers WTGirl, I will be spending part of my morning calling and urging them NOT to pass the bill! My husband drives (independent contractor) for a local courier service and the congestion pricing will just be another financial burden on us.

I can't believe people think the money will truly benefit mass transit or help our city in any way that any of us will see-just another way for the city to make a buck off of the backs of the working class.

Instead of thinking of just your own pocket book, why not make phone calls asking politicians to consider ways to make this work for working class people making deliveries? The bill is very much in transition and being updated by the hour.

Why not think of the many parents of children with asthma from poor air quality in NY? Why not think of getting our hands on that federal money to hopefully improve public transportation? Why not think about ways to reduce car usage in NY?

I am not saying this plan is perfect or that in the end we will get all we hope from it. But do we just GIVE UP? Do we just say Oh F*%$ Global warming if it is going to cost me $8.00? I don't want to pay into our infrastructure (OF COURSE the city needs to raise revenue!)? I don't get that negative attitude frankly or this idea that we don't all need to pay into the services of our government.

daver

I don't buy into this plan as is, and that certainly doesn't mean that I am saying fuck global warming, that is a mighty broad brush you are painting with there. I spend a decent amount of time daily first on subways, then on buses into NJ and back in order to do my part. Even though it takes longer than driving. And arguably costs a bit more as well. *shrug* So watch the pedestal you are climbing a bit there or you will alienate those who want to believe as well.

longtimesloper

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]And, if the city was truly worried about congestion and not just money, they could implement carpooling plans, etc. to cut down on traffic in Manhattan!

That's...kind of what they're trying to do. They're taking a roundabout way of doing it, but the thinking is rather than trying to FORCE people to carpool, they're trying to make it look good on paper so people will decide by themselves that they should carpool.

As for your situation, I agree that your husband raising his rates would be the best solution. It's what businesses do when their operating expenses go up, and I'm sure customers would understand. (Maybe releasing some kind of note to his regular customers explaining why he's raised his rates by a dollar a trip, or whatever, would underscore the point.)


thanks, he and other drivers are talking to the companies owners about this right now. As I said before though, it will just be passed along the board and prices, whiles we are already in a recession, will go up for everyone.

daver

LongTimeSloper wrote: thanks, he and other drivers are talking to the companies owners about this right now. As I said before though, it will just be passed along the board and prices, whiles we are already in a recession, will go up for everyone.

Like I said before, there are multiple reasons to believe that despite an $8 charge, a local delivery type such as you are desribing may be doing better under the congestion pricing plan than without it. You really ought review some of the data. *shrug*

There really are a lot of unknowns. I'll freely admit that I am cynical and pessimistic on this, but you are downright defeatist and nihilistic.

IMO.

longtimesloper

WTGirl wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]Well, thank you for the phone numbers WTGirl, I will be spending part of my morning calling and urging them NOT to pass the bill! My husband drives (independent contractor) for a local courier service and the congestion pricing will just be another financial burden on us.

I can't believe people think the money will truly benefit mass transit or help our city in any way that any of us will see-just another way for the city to make a buck off of the backs of the working class.

Instead of thinking of just your own pocket book, why not make phone calls asking politicians to consider ways to make this work for working class people making deliveries? The bill is very much in transition and being updated by the hour.

Why not think of the many parents of children with asthma from poor air quality in NY? Why not think of getting our hands on that federal money to hopefully improve public transportation? Why not think about ways to reduce car usage in NY?

I am not saying this plan is perfect or that in the end we will get all we hope from it. But do we just GIVE UP? Do we just say Oh F*%$ Global warming if it is going to cost me $8.00? I don't want to pay into our infrastructure (OF COURSE the city needs to raise revenue!)? I don't get that negative attitude frankly or this idea that we don't all need to pay into the services of our government.


No one is saying fuck global warming-not at all.
But, there is a better way to do it than charging people like this. Plus-how do we know that this is a one time per day charge? is it? Or, will people be charged every time they pop in and out of the Manhattan zone? if we want to help global warming and truly reduce car usage-then why not go back to what happened post 9/11? Let's only allow emergency and commercial vehicles to drive into the city and any personal cars must have 2 or more people into it. Wouldn't that have the same effect without hitting people in the pocketbook?

And again, getting our hands on federal money to improve public transport-like I said before, I don't see that happening. We will get the federal money-will it go to public transport improvements? Call me a skeptic, but I doubt it.

As for making calls-yes, i have been making them-thanks for the phone numbers

longtimesloper

daver wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]thanks, he and other drivers are talking to the companies owners about this right now. As I said before though, it will just be passed along the board and prices, whiles we are already in a recession, will go up for everyone.

Like I said before, there are multiple reasons to believe that despite an $8 charge, a local delivery type such as you are desribing may be doing better under the congestion pricing plan than without it. You really ought review some of the data. *shrug*

There really are a lot of unknowns. I'll freely admit that I am cynical and pessimistic on this, but you are downright defeatist and nihilistic.

IMO.





Wow-thanks! defeatist and nihilistic? Yeah-maybe because it is hitting me personally than others on here. also maybe because the plan does not specify whether or not people will be charged every time they enter the certain Manhattan zones. If there is a deliver made in Brooklyn and then he has to go back into Manhattan, is he hit again? I guess I am also not a big Bloomberg fan-he seems to want to drive business out of the city instead of encouraging it to stay. Taking away commercial parking zones etc. I guess there is more in my mind on this topic due to other factors.

As for drivers doing better due to decreased traffic-I truly don't believe it will decrease traffic-so, no extra money there. Hey, I guess I am defeatist! But, I also don't think anyone else posting here will be directly affected by this the way we will be.

I guess no one else is concerned by what the trickle down effect of congestion pricing will do to our economy. We are already in a recession-and passing along price increases down the line can't help that.

Well,time will tell. I hope I am wrong and you are are right.

daver

LongTimeSloper wrote: Wow-thanks! defeatist and nihilistic? Yeah-maybe because it is hitting me personally than others on here. also maybe because the plan does not specify whether or not people will be charged every time they enter the certain Manhattan zones. If there is a deliver made in Brooklyn and then he has to go back into Manhattan, is he hit again? I guess I am also not a big Bloomberg fan-he seems to want to drive business out of the city instead of encouraging it to stay. Taking away commercial parking zones etc. I guess there is more in my mind on this topic due to other factors.

As for drivers doing better due to decreased traffic-I truly don't believe it will decrease traffic-so, no extra money there. I guess I am defeatist. But, I also don't think anyone else posting here will be directly affected by this the way we will be.

I guess time will tell.

Yeah, I'm SURE you will be the only one affected. </sarchasm>

And as for freely admitting that you have no idea how it works and coupling that with blindly being against it, well, WTF? Really?

And I feel the same for the flip side. Blindly being FOR it without any consideration to how it works makes no sense either. The point of the silly thing is to reduce cars in Manhattan, no? So why does it ENCOURAGE people in NJ and SI to drive into Manhattan then? The only people being discouraged are the people in the other three boroughs. The plan is like less than a third baked in my opinion. It needs some attention.

longtimesloper

I did not say I don't know how it works-I said I am unsure of that one part-sorry, didn't I state that clearly enough?

and, i didn't say I was the only one affected by it-i said, on this board. LOL. It seems everyone else on here (with the exception of you who is keeping an open mind while mine is already shut) is thrilled with the plan (especially the people who don't even own cars!). **sarcasm**

carnivore

daver wrote: The point of the silly thing is to reduce cars in Manhattan, no? So why does it ENCOURAGE people in NJ and SI to drive into Manhattan then? The only people being discouraged are the people in the other three boroughs. The plan is like less than a third baked in my opinion. It needs some attention.

Well, the city currently encourages people in the other 3 boroughs to drive into Manhattan by forcing those of without cars to subsidize the toll-free East River and Harlem River crossings. The new congestion pricing will begin to even out that inequity. At least the Jersey and Staten Island drivers are already paying a toll to get into the city.

daver

Carnivore wrote: [quote=daver]The point of the silly thing is to reduce cars in Manhattan, no? So why does it ENCOURAGE people in NJ and SI to drive into Manhattan then? The only people being discouraged are the people in the other three boroughs. The plan is like less than a third baked in my opinion. It needs some attention.

Well, the city currently encourages people in the other 3 boroughs to drive into Manhattan by forcing those of without cars to subsidize the toll-free East River and Harlem River crossings. The new congestion pricing will begin to even out that inequity. At least the Jersey and Staten Island drivers are already paying a toll to get into the city.
You have a point there. Which I don't agree with. I agree that it would even out that inequity. I don't like that as a result efforts to lower the number of cars in Manhattan are to be initially focused upon those three boroughs. If anything, I think that residents of NYC should have a subsidy to be in Manhattan when compared to those who don't live in NYC.

Given the current setup as baseline, residents of those 3 boros pay nothing to drive into Manhattan. Residents of NJ pay $8 (rush hour) to get into Manhattan.

The proposed setup will charge people from the 3 boros $8, discouraging them from driving as compared to current. It will not change what people are paying coming from NJ, not discouraging them at all. If anything, the increased ridership of the subways and the traffic decrease in Manhattan will ENCOURAGE those people to drive MORE! If we are going to encourage anyone to drive more, how about NYC residents and not NJ ones?

wtgirl

LongTimeSloper wrote: Or, will people be charged every time they pop in and out of the Manhattan zone? if we want to help global warming and truly reduce car usage-then why not go back to what happened post 9/11? Let's only allow emergency and commercial vehicles to drive into the city and any personal cars must have 2 or more people into it. Wouldn't that have the same effect without hitting people in the pocketbook?

From what I read, it is a once per day charge for delivery trucks and people doing business in NY.

Also, I think pushing for carpooling for a reduced rate is something we CAN push for NOW while the bill is in flux.

Instead of rejecting it, why not figure out what is wrong and offer solutions? The politicians right now are really listening and trying to figure out what works and what isn't for their constituents. The bill changes hourly as concessions and changes are made.

And yes, with a recession, the city is going to need to raise revenue somehow. We won't be getting it off of wall street so it has to come somewhere.

eggcream

This will turn out to be another Bloomberg diaster and hope it does not pass.

March 29, 2008

"Gov. Paterson is proposing cutting $60 million from the MTA's $10 billion operating budget. That's less than 1%, but further decreases in real estate revenues could make an even larger dent in the budget. According to the New York Post, real estate revenues were off $31 million this month, which could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The effect on riders will not make many happy: possible service cuts and another fare hike in the near future.

Those are bitter pills to swallow for transit riders who just are getting used to a recently enacted fare hike that affected regular riders, but left single-trip fares alone. Money from the fare hike was promised to be earmarked for service improvements, but recently the MTA backtracked from that commitment, citing budget concerns.

Richard Brodsky, a state assemblyman representing Westchester told The Daily News "A fare hike next year is inevitable." He then added that service cuts with a fare hike, in addition to Paterson's new support of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing fee was completely unfair. "They are beating the hell out of the middle class."

http://gothamist.com/2008/03/29/mtas_budget_cri.php

longtimesloper

WTGirl wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]Or, will people be charged every time they pop in and out of the Manhattan zone? if we want to help global warming and truly reduce car usage-then why not go back to what happened post 9/11? Let's only allow emergency and commercial vehicles to drive into the city and any personal cars must have 2 or more people into it. Wouldn't that have the same effect without hitting people in the pocketbook?

From what I read, it is a once per day charge for delivery trucks and people doing business in NY.

Also, I think pushing for carpooling for a reduced rate is something we CAN push for NOW while the bill is in flux.

Instead of rejecting it, why not figure out what is wrong and offer solutions? The politicians right now are really listening and trying to figure out what works and what isn't for their constituents. The bill changes hourly as concessions and changes are made.

And yes, with a recession, the city is going to need to raise revenue somehow. We won't be getting it off of wall street so it has to come somewhere.


Ok-with a recession the city needs to make money you are saying, right? but, in a recession where the city's people aren't making money-why take even more from them?

caaahyoko

eggcream wrote: This will turn out to be another Bloomberg diaster and hope it does not pass.

March 29, 2008

"Gov. Paterson is proposing cutting $60 million from the MTA's $10 billion operating budget. That's less than 1%, but further decreases in real estate revenues could make an even larger dent in the budget. According to the New York Post, real estate revenues were off $31 million this month, which could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The effect on riders will not make many happy: possible service cuts and another fare hike in the near future.

Those are bitter pills to swallow for transit riders who just are getting used to a recently enacted fare hike that affected regular riders, but left single-trip fares alone. Money from the fare hike was promised to be earmarked for service improvements, but recently the MTA backtracked from that commitment, citing budget concerns.

Richard Brodsky, a state assemblyman representing Westchester told The Daily News "A fare hike next year is inevitable." He then added that service cuts with a fare hike, in addition to Paterson's new support of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing fee was completely unfair. "They are beating the hell out of the middle class."

http://gothamist.com/2008/03/29/mtas_budget_cri.php

I stopped believing them when they say they have a budget crisis. One of the last times they said they were going to have a deficit, as soon as their books were scrutinized, they suddenly "found" 500-600 million dollars or some crazy number.

wtgirl

LongTimeSloper wrote: ity needs to make money you are saying, right? but, in a recession where the city's people aren't making money-why take even more from them?

Tonight I was talking to a few friends who work in government. We are being shielded from how really bad things are with both the state and federal economy. It was a sobering conversation.

The government is broke. It needs revenue. Why does it need revenue from YOU as an individual? Because the government pays for schools. Because the government pays for the FAA. Because the government pays for roads and bridges. Because the government (as flawed as it is) pays for the Food and Drug Administration. Because the government pays for the police and the fire department and the teachers who teach your kids and health insurance for poor people and social security for your parents. That is why the government (the city) needs YOUR money even more during a recession. And that has nothing to do with congestion pricing but why YOU as an individual may have to step up and pay back a little bit more towards your state, your city and your country (as f'd up as it is).

daver

Well WTF.

Seriously.

This is all over the place.

Ok, so the city and state need money. And the Feds need money for the FDA? Tea? China?

Anyway, so this definitely speaks to some of the immutable concerns I have. How is it that monies intended for the MTA keep getting siphoned off? What safeguards are in place for the new monies to actually make it to the MTA and improve mass transit? We are talk about what, $1.354B here _before_ the first congestion charge is collected. That is a pretty good amount when compared to the MTA's $10B annual budget.

Anyway, my point is basically that we need the congestion charge to raise revenue for the city and state flies in the face of everything that has been said about where that money is _supposed_ to go and presupposes that the money is going to be hijacked. Your argument is that it is a good thing because the city and state need money? Please.

longtimesloper

WTGirl wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]ity needs to make money you are saying, right? but, in a recession where the city's people aren't making money-why take even more from them?

Tonight I was talking to a few friends who work in government. We are being shielded from how really bad things are with both the state and federal economy. It was a sobering conversation.

The government is broke. It needs revenue. Why does it need revenue from YOU as an individual? Because the government pays for schools. Because the government pays for the FAA. Because the government pays for roads and bridges. Because the government (as flawed as it is) pays for the Food and Drug Administration. Because the government pays for the police and the fire department and the teachers who teach your kids and health insurance for poor people and social security for your parents. That is why the government (the city) needs YOUR money even more during a recession. And that has nothing to do with congestion pricing but why YOU as an individual may have to step up and pay back a little bit more towards your state, your city and your country (as f'd up as it is).


Yes, and let's not forget that the country needs money for war also.

wtgirl

daver wrote:
Ok, so the city and state need money. And the Feds need money for the FDA? Tea? China?

Anyway, so this definitely speaks to some of the immutable concerns I have. How is it that monies intended for the MTA keep getting siphoned off? Your argument is that it is a good thing because the city and state need money? Please.

Actually sorry, my argument is just that yes, congestion pricing is a tax. But people have this knee jerk reaction against a tax and immediately don't want to have to pay in to the system. This particular tax is supposed to be for the MTA.

Other taxes pay for the programs I mentioned above. My point is just that people have to get over their revulsion to taxes. If I had to choose between the Federal Government or Enron running the FAA, I would choose the Federal Government. But that takes money and money that does come out of our own pockets.

Yes, I believe part of the plan of Bush's war was to dismantle the Federal Government by bankrupting it. It is the one successful thing he accomplished this past 7 years.

homeowner

WTGirl, question for you. How is the city (which does not control the MTA) going to guarantee that the MTA will spend congestion pricing $$s on the subway system and not divert it to Metro-North, LIRR or any of the regional bus service it runs, all of which receive as large or larger farebox subsidies than the subway system?

wtgirl

homeowner wrote: WTGirl, question for you. How is the city (which does not control the MTA) going to guarantee that the MTA will spend congestion pricing $$s on the subway system and not divert it to Metro-North, LIRR or any of the regional bus service it runs, all of which receive as large or larger farebox subsidies than the subway system?

I don't know actually. I am not naive....the MTA is corrupt and that is a huge problem to this bill. There are no guarantees.

But actually the mayor said that the Port Authority must pay NY 1 Billion dollars OR else New Jersey drivers DO need to pay coming into Manhattan. So now according to NPR, it is Corzine who will kill the bill. Not sure why New Jerseyites get to use our services and pay nothing towards NYC?

Here is how to contact Corzine by email: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/govmail.html

although I would still contact Sidney Sheldon.

raw

WTGirl wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]ity needs to make money you are saying, right? but, in a recession where the city's people aren't making money-why take even more from them?

Tonight I was talking to a few friends who work in government. We are being shielded from how really bad things are with both the state and federal economy. This is news?

bkchickie

I'm very much in favor of congestion pricing, and even though I don't own a car I think that I'm entitled to an opinion. Why? I'm subject to the pollution that all these cars produce, and as a user of mass transit, I'm in favor of making those car owners pay for our mass transit improvements. After all, we non-drivers pay for the improvements of your roads.

This might also push those who are on the fence about giving up a car a push to finally do so. Or, to push those who don't normally use public transit into buying a monthly MetroCard. I don't think that either is a bad thing.

By many accounts, this type of system is working well in London.

And, if congestion pricing fails miserably in New York, fear not: there will be no end of politicians willing to champion the system's removal.

guvna

well, its clear to me that they dont really care about congestion in the City. They just want our money. Sadly for them I stopped going regularly to the overpriced City ages ago! LOL. If I go during the day for work, I'll get reimbursed. If I go for entertainment, it will have to be after 6pm or on the weekend. I wonder what effect will be felt with the businesses in the City?

In short, they wont be getting my money.

carnivore

Guvna wrote: well, its clear to me that they dont really care about congestion in the City. They just want our money. Sadly for them I stopped going regularly to the overpriced City ages ago! LOL. If I go during the day for work, I'll get reimbursed. If I go for entertainment, it will have to be after 6pm or on the weekend. I wonder what effect will be felt with the businesses in the City?

In short, they wont be getting my money.

Then it sounds like for the most part, they'll be effective at keeping your car out of the city during peak hours. And they'll collect money from whoever's reimbursing you the rest of the time. Win-win!

drkman

I don't care for the congestion pricing plan as it now stands and I don't believe that the money is going to go for what it is stated for. Or better yet, it will not increase funding for transportation. When the State claimed that Lotto was going to go for education, it did, but the State also funneled money that was previously being used for education into other programs so there was no great benefit.

Couple of issues, if you just are traveling via the FDR or West Side Highway and have no intention or need to go into the congestion pricing zone, you will still be charged.

New York City consists of 5 boroughs, it is ridiculous that in order to go from Brooklyn to the Bronx, or Bronx to Queens, or any borough to Manhattan (except Bronx to Manhattan) that you have to pay a toll to travel within the confines of the city (excluding the congestion pricing zone), not the metro area but the city itself. Staten Island has always gotten the short stick with this but at least if you live on Staten Island you can receive a major discount using the Verrazano.

Forcing a person to utilize E-Z pass, when it may not be the method that they want. Basically, that is how the cars are being monitored and if you don't use E-Z Pass, you run the risk of having to pay substantially more due to penalties, if you don't pay within the specified time frame.

In the beginning, I thought it was okay because it was basically just if you wanted to travel within a specified area of Manhattan but as it is now, you will pay for just entering into Manhattan. Unless of course, if you live in the Bronx, which has a bunch of little bridges that you will still be able to travel without having to pay, as long as you don't cross the zone.

Regarding, ashtma and those health issues, Harlem already has a major issue with that and I don't see how congestion pricing will make it better. It will probably make it worse for that neighborhood since you would have more cars that were not driving through Harlem begin to, to find parking. Brooklyn also, Flatbush Avenue has a bad traffic problem and it would seem that you may get more cars driving into the area, looking for parking so that they would not have to pay the extra money.

Anyway, just random thoughts and I hope that the plan is changed to make it more fair to all of the boroughs.

capt. planet

I actually attended the City Council hearing a week ago Monday on congestion pricing. It was very interesting. Many of the skeptics on the Council raising many of the questions being raised in this forum. I must say I was trully impressed the DOT Commissioner. She really had a command of the issues and believe me, the City has studied this plan to death. I have a personal friend who is one of the deputy commissioners at DOT. I've known this guy for 20 years. He analyzes everything six ways from Sunday. Of course no one will know what will happen until we try it, but trust me, after hearing the DOT people present to the Council, there is very little about this plan that hasn't been thought through.

The question I have for the skeptics who claim to be for stopping global warming: what is your plan? I mean really, let's get serious. The bottom line is - you don't have one and don't really care about stopping global warming either. 'Nuf said. Get up out of our easy chairs and roll up your sleaves. THis plan needs everybody's help. It will only work if you do your part.

guvna

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Guvna]well, its clear to me that they dont really care about congestion in the City. They just want our money. Sadly for them I stopped going regularly to the overpriced City ages ago! LOL. If I go during the day for work, I'll get reimbursed. If I go for entertainment, it will have to be after 6pm or on the weekend. I wonder what effect will be felt with the businesses in the City?

In short, they wont be getting my money.

Then it sounds like for the most part, they'll be effective at keeping your car out of the city during peak hours. And they'll collect money from whoever's reimbursing you the rest of the time. Win-win!
Total win-win!

Except for any social events in the City that I may have otherwise driven to before 6pm. Those businesses will have to go without my support. I simply cannot stand the subways. I rode them for over 20 years. They sucked then, suck now, and will suck even after this so-called plan gets the money flowing.