Nine Bklyn Councilmembers Vote Against Congest Fee

UNCOOL de blasio

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:03 AM

There were lots of robocalls going around for people to contact their representatives to vote against congestion pricing. Of course they wouldn't say who was funding the calls, probably the Petroleum Institute or some other lobbying organization that wants to keep the status quo--and they were framed funny: "vote against this because we can't trust the MTA with more money since they'll just squander it."

I mean I can understand the fear that the near Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods will become parking lots for Manhattan but they weren't asking people to be against the issue for that reason.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:08 AM

Bloomberg did an amazing snowball job on this issue. I can't believe someone questions organization against it - when many many more $$ were spent promoting it - why not ask who funded that?
Sold it as environmental issue - when really just a revenue producer. And essentially lets the taxi/limo rider off for just another $1. - and they are the group that congest and pollutes. Do you know that those vehicles have more riders than mass transit WITHIN midtown where mass transit option are best.
Also, I find residential parking permits much worse idea than the congestion pricing.
Because if he charged taxi/limo riders $8 each too I would have no problem with congestion pricing.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:17 AM

Please, people SHARE taxi's throughout the day, instead of one car one person. Where do I go to rally Albany to support this?

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:26 AM

Are you telling me people who can afford a car, insurance, gas, and parking to drive to work everyday in Manhattan can’t afford another 8 bucks. These are not poor folks just more of the disenfranchised middle class caught up in the ridiculous façade of wealth this city has erected. And I don’t buy the argument that the neighborhoods close to Manhattan will become parking lots. Why would someone fight traffic, spend time looking for parking in an already parking deprived neighborhood, only to then have to pay 4 bucks to get on a subway or bus to get into Manhattan. Wouldn’t they just pay the extra 4 bucks and keep on driving? I say ban private cars, require all truck deliveries to take place between 10pm and 6am, and spend the 350 million to buy a couple million bikes and blanket the city.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:39 AM

--a revenue producer to fund a progressive and vital service that is universally used and woefully underfunded and held captive by upstate interests that have no use for downstate mass transit. Wake up. Take some ownership and responsibility for the mass transit you use, so when the service sucks you can demand accountability. A recent study said that nearly half of daytime parking in Brownstone Brooklyn is already used as a parking lot for commuters to Manhattan.

Demand more mass transit. Not less. Demand more weekend and night time (off peak) service. Make residential parking permits part of the plan to discourage even more inundations to our communities of parkers that spend no time or money in our hood. Stop Ratner from tearing down Phase 2 area buildings for thousands of parking spaces that will be a true blight and an environmental catastrophe for dozens of years to come.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:46 AM

Fees are OK as long as the revenue is earmarked for mass transit.
What's puzzling is why are some so opposed to residential permits? Just because their visiting friends would have to pay for parking once in a while?

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:52 AM

Deblasio needs to be stoped. Clean air is not good? come on

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:53 AM

Earmarked for mass transit? Lol...there's no way that's going to happen.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:54 AM

9:46. I hear you. Every time I watch two empty V trains (always the newer cars) roll by, only to squeeze on a crowded F (often the old, loud rickety bench-type cars) for my ride home to Brooklyn I curse the idiots that schedule the trains. It seems that if they simply ran every other V (if not all) to Bergen Street, they could even out the traffic a bit--until they finish the viaduct and could run the V all the way to Ft. Hamilton Parkway or farther.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:56 AM

I would guess the spammer hasn't had sex in at least the last five years. It can be the only explanation. Dude, try Match.com or one of the other online dating services. There is hope for you.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:59 AM

Mr. B- Why don't you start putting a word limit on posts and making people sign in?

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 9:59 AM

9:39 I like the cut of your jib. Let's do lunch. I need an environmentalist like you working with me..

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:02 AM

Problem is people in Jersey and LI don't have to pay it yet people in Brooklyn and Queens do.
After LI and NJ pay tolls, the congestion fee is subtracted for a zero cost.
Residents of NYC will be paying it but non residents won't.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:07 AM

It is easy for us who live fairly central city with good subway service and not rally far to travel to be for this proposal.
Of course, we need not care or be concerned to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of NYC residents who don't. May have to walk to as busline that connect to a subway line. And then they may not work 9-5ish where transit runs more frequently but gets out of work at midnight and travel to higher crime neighborhoods that most of Brownstoner readers couldn't find on a map.
And then to add insult to injury - don't even want to allow them to park nearer a convenient subway station.
Also, the new proposal unlike the 1st one, charges for FDR Drive - will that not add to congestion/pollution on BQE through our neighborhoods? Are more trucks going to take longer route to GWB and Verazano to avoid fees when going to NJ when Holland tunnel is shortest?
All the discussion is about motorist, but the big cost is to trucks. Never any thought to what that may do. Obviously they can't do deliveries by subway.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:11 AM

This is just another wasteful tax on the working people of New York and a regressive one to boot. The goal of the tax is too make it easier for the CEO types to zoom around in their limos with less traffic from the working man. For the rich this is a tax write off, to independent business men, the small business men trying to enter the City, the cost will be significant.

Plus, I guess we can finally write off China town as the last viable ethnic neighborhood in lower Manhattan as the poor Chinese will now be priced out from visiting with their families.

As for improving public transit, good luck. This is just more more tax money to be wasted by the MTA, the most corrupt and incompetent government agency in the State, and that is saying something.

You want to improve public transit, start by abolishing the MTA and returning it to City control. Otherwise you are throwing the tax money down a well.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:25 AM

10:11 Guest,

I'd be more "concerned" about the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of NYC residents who "need" to drive if they were more concerned about the impact of traffic on quality of life. My brownstone street is like a parking lot at 5:00 PM as drivers coming off the Brookyln Bridge use side streets to avoid the BQE and Atlantic Avenue. Horns honking, steres blaring and driving 60 miles an hour to squeek through a yellow light.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:25 AM

"All the discussion is about motorist, but the big cost is to trucks. Never any thought to what that may do. Obviously they can't do deliveries by subway."

The Port Authority of NY &NJ was formed with the sole purpose of building a tunnel for freight between Brooklyn and Jersey. It is getting near 100 years that this mandate has gone unheeded. Loss of quality of life, increased asthma rates, noise, pollution and infrastructure damage has been the the price that we pay for the lack of leadership in this area. Get rid of the trucks. Implement a comprehensive transportation plan for the area. Local deliveries only please.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:32 AM

With the cost of diesel fuel being what it is, I doubt truck drivers will be taking longer routes to avoid paying $8. Though it might depend on a particular truck's fuel economy.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:35 AM

Want people to take mass transit? Fine, then upgrade mass transit FIRST, THEN institute congestion pricing. I don't know if you noticed or not, but the trains are bloody crowded. At rush hour you're lucky if you can sandwich yourself into one like a sardine.

And don't spin the old fairytale about how congestion pricing will pay for a mass transit upgrade. I mean, does anyone actually believe this will happen?

Congestion pricing will only result in worse mass transit conditions. In other words, lower quality of life for the working people of this city and improved quality of life for the lucky few who can afford to hang their hats in Manhattan. That really is the long and short of it.

It's not about the environment. It's about class. It's about money.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:56 AM

It figures Tish James would sell out on this issue. Selling out is her modus operandi.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 10:57 AM

10:45. Local deliveries need to be delivered, of course. What we don't need is freight moving in from Jersey to supply all of Long Island going through our neighborhoods and clogging our streets and highways locally (and visa-versa). Remember, Brooklyn and Queens are just the access point for an island that is 150 miles long. It's called "Long Island."

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 11:00 AM

Truck fee is not $8 but $21.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 11:09 AM

How is this about class? If the arguement is that people driving in are less affluent than those taking the train, then I'd like to see the data supporting it. I pay about a $1,000 a year for my monthly metro card. I also have a car and know that I pay almost twice that amoutn for insurance alone. My guess is that people who drive in are more affulent than those taking the train.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 11:12 AM

"Plus, I guess we can finally write off China town as the last viable ethnic neighborhood in lower Manhattan as the poor Chinese will now be priced out from visiting with their families."

What? Can't Chinese people take the subway?

And don't give me a sob story about it being a tax on the working man. Why can't he take the subway.

And the for the small business man, why is it not a right off the same as for the rich business man?

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 11:21 AM

While I am for the idea of a disincentive to auto access in NYC, I have major concerns with the transparency of the MTA as the agency which gets the revenue. The MTA has a terrible track record of transparency and accountability. Bloomberg has promised significant improvements in mass transit but in reality has little control over whether or not those improvements actually happen. The MTA made significant promises to improve service at the end of 07 in exchange for the fare increase but now has put improvements on hold. I believe for this plan to be anything but a exclusionary slush fund, the MTA must be more accountable to the public. We must increase the transparency of this "authority" and we should do the same with the Port Authority and the TBTA. These organizations have vast income but little transparency and accountability. Without such changes I have grave doubts that congestion pricing would have positive effects on Manhattan.
P.S. Why don't we extend the zone to include the entire city?

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 11:38 AM

the V is plenty corwded when i get on it rockefeller

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 11:55 AM

Ahh the NIMBY agenda at its best (or in this case). Slefish, Selfish, Selfish.

1st - of course impossing a fee will reduce congestion - I can AFFORD a (nice) car, insurance and even (indoor) parking but I choose not to spend my $ on that when I can take the (tax-deductible) subway (despite the fact that driving would be about 50% quicker) and the higher you make a fee the more people who will choose to leave their car home.

2nd - The idea that this is a tax on the cash strapped working man is simply ridiculous. No regular working man is driving into Manhattan for work Mon-Fri 6-6.

3rd - every SINGLE complaint about how much the fee is , who is exempt (i.e. NJ, Conn) and where the money is spent are debates for AFTER the plan is approved - not a reason to not have congestion pricing in the 1st place.

This is just a manifestation of the same selfishness that guides so much of our politics - Tax the rich! (but only people who make more than me are rich); We need more jails (but not near where I live); Housing costs too much (but I dont want tall buildings) etc, etc, etc,

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:18 PM

Think of the upside for tracking all those city employees who drive into the city, and then park illegally. I know it sounds a little big brotherish, but knowing who is causing the congestion is the first step in identifying ways to alleviate it. All we have now are educated guesses and the occassional survey.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:18 PM

I'm glad this passed the City Council, but doubt it will make it beyond Silver and Bruno.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:20 PM

11:21 is such a racist comment. Yes Chinese do and does take mass transit. The problem is Chinatown has not recovered from 9/11 and by impossing an 8 dollar fee and charge truck an even higher fee will hurt business in Chinatown who depends on delivery of all the produce and goods.
If the mayor is really interested in reducing the traffic in Manhattan, the first thing he should do is make the police and city officials take mass transit. Policemen gets to ride the subway fcr free instead they bring their cars in and clog the streets and park any which way they want to. By the way none of the MTA officers ever use the subway system.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:24 PM

"The problem is Chinatown has not recovered from 9/11"

What? Give me a break! Chinatown has more tourists now than at any time in recent memory. How exactly is the community struggling and how is that related to 9/11?

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:17 PM

well since tish james voted for it, i hope that she also votes for residential parking permits! in fact, these type of permits should be issued to actual HOME OWNERS, not renters before anyone else. please no nasty comments, i pay real estate taxes and i should get a permit before anyone else, especially the renters with cars. if you have a car, you could have used the $30K for a downpayment.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 1:57 PM

Don't worry about making past Bruno. He is in Bloomberg's pocket since Bloomberg is by far largest contributer to NY Senate Republican committee.
Anyone who works in Midtown- look around when out for lunch...how many private cars do you really see. It is trucks, cabs, limos/black cars.
And when you subtract NJ plates who will pay no more and the gov't workers (cops, fireman, court, etc, diplomats, handicap) how many are there?
I say eliminate 90% of gov't permits (Bloomberg's proposal of 20% shows he is not serious about pollution/congestion) and charge cab/limo riders same (or at least half) of what private cars pay. Then I would cheer the proposal.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:05 PM

"Of course, we need not care or be concerned to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of NYC residents who don't...and travel to higher crime neighborhoods that most of Brownstoner readers couldn't find on a map."

Just to say that this is a forum of people who live in brownstone BK and are dealing with our own issues. People in East NY are going to feel different, obviously.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:32 PM

1:57, I'm pretty certain that as a renter I pay dear LL's RE taxes and am equally entitled to park in the neighborhood where I live.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 2:48 PM

To hell with congestion pricing.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 3:17 PM

Yes, drivers do make more than subway riders. I can't remember the numbers, but I think it's about a third more. It would be even greater, but a lot of city employees drive because their parking placards gives them free parking. The bottom line: poor people aren't driving to work in Manhattan.

This is a great, wonderful, fabulous, revolutionary piece of legislation. Thank you Tish James for doing the right thing.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 4:18 PM

To those complaining that truck service will be hurt by congestion pricing:

Time is also a huge cost. If a truck driver can drive around Manhattanin 20% less time, that's huge. A five hour route (assuming the truck is making multiple stops here) becomes a four hour route. You don't think this will cover the cost of the congestion fee?

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 4:24 PM

@4:34...

It IS a tax on the working class. Here's how:

Hypothetically, I am a successful bodega owner who drives my Lexus from Westchester to Manhattan daily.

Now with congestion pricing, I have to pay $160s a month to do this?

Do I stop driving my Lexus into Manhattan? Oh, hell no! I just started looking more elite!

Do I eat that 160$? Oh, hell no! Remember, I am a _successful_ businessman. I earn that 160bucks by raising the price of eggs, milk, and beer.

Thus this is a tax on the working man.

If it were about congestion, we'd be reducing car lanes. We would be exempting motorcycles and scooters like London does.

If this were about encouraging bicycle use, we'd be building seperate bike lanes.

If this were about fixing our public transportation problems, we'd be launching an investigation into where the 5 billion surplus that the MTA had went.

But this is a revenue generator.

Bloomberg could have supported a tax (which was proposed) on people who make more than a million bucks a year, but he didn't.

He chose this, a tax on the working man.

Not absurd. Some people can see just a few steps ahead of you.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 5:39 PM

Spoken like a true congesting driver 5:39.

It puts a smile on my face to think about all of you self absorbed single occupancy drivers grumbling and nearly irate each time you cross into Manhattan or get the $160 bill from the MTA every month.

Get on the subway or train like the rest of us, this is NYC not Arkansas.

As for the lexus driving bodega owner. If he raises prices to offset his commuting costs, he will be driven out of buisness by the more responsible bodega owners that take mass transit, or perhaps those that live AND work in NYC.

If you want the luxury of driving in a congested city - You will just have to pay more for it now. I know that rubs alot of people the wrong way, but life will go on. And due to you selfishly driving in every day, at least I will see some mass transit improvements and some people will choose to stay off the road. Its win, win, win, except for those people that are too stubborn to set foot on a train.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 5:49 PM

I am 5:39.

I do not drive.

I take a bus and two trains for an over an hour commute, which would be about 20mins in a car.

Still, I don't even want a car, and I am against congestion pricing.

Because I see further than 5:49

5:49 and 4:34 just aren't very smart people.

Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 6:20 PM

mr renter who thinks you pay lls enough to get a parking permit: like i said, save your money and buy a house then you get a parking permit. otherwise, take the bus. in addition, you ll pays taxes on your rent!

Posted by: guest at April 2, 2008 5:00 PM