Adding Tolls to Brooklyn Bridges?

There will be LESS traffic.....right now people switch to the free bridges rather then take the PA bridges and tolls, plus I am sure the payment system will be electronic thereby eliminating the need for toll plazas.

This is a no brainer in everyway.... the city needs a solid revenue source for the subways and what better source then the people who drive.

And then the Federal Govt should put in a oil tax to keep the price at a minimum $70 a barrel.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 11:09 AM

On the Taxi issue (as well as other concerns) - I think most proposals call for Tolls on E. River Bridges during weekdays and evenings - not during weekends or late night. Obviously that could change but I do not think the cities retail establishments will be too happy with tolls that discourages people from coming to Manhattan for nightlife or shopping.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 12:49 PM

sam - easing congestion and thinking green is about the money as well, stupid.

You are never going to ease congestion or get people to be "green" unless it costs something to NOT drive (or otherwise be green).

The fact that NYC needs to balance it budget and this will help is a great by-product (or even the motivation) - but in the end it is irrelevant since the larger goal (less congestion and pollution) cannot be attained without the tax. Sort of like how the cigarette tax (and ban) has greatly reduced smoking.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 1:03 PM

sam - of course people can be discouraged from driving their cars - did you see what $4.50 gas did, do you see what $30 a day parking does, or traffic....sure people love their cars but if it costs more to use people will use it less - its called economics - and despite all ouir bailouts - it still controls.

As to how will the subway handle it - you have a point, but with a dedicated revenue stream and even more usage - you will be able to have $ ultimatley for service enhancements.....its not like the roads arent full either - if we are to (eventually)have a growing city (either pop or economically) you have more travel - should we dedicate resources to expanding road travel or mass-transit?

BTW Biff we will NEVER run out of oil (nor are/were supplies ever really that constrained to justify the recent price spike) BUT a floor tax on oil is also a no brainer and until it is enacted - you will know that this country and its leaders are really not at all serious about removing USAs dependence on oil.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 2:31 PM

dave - we will never run out because as supplies diminish the (long term) price goes up and demand decreases. When the price gets to an unsustainable point AND STAYS THERE, people will stop mostly stop using oil and whatever is still around will remain.

That being said, reserve numbers; depletion numbers etc....are all based on models - and frankly I think we have shown how misguided modeling can be (ask all those Wall St risk officers)......As I predicted here only months ago - and was laughed at - oil is now below $50 a barrel and falling proving there is plenty of oil out there and we are very far from "running out" - what we are not far from is being totally dependent on foreign suppliers who hate us and thereby giving them way too much leverage over our economy, politics and way of life.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 2:47 PM

dave, dave, dave - don't you realize that when oil gets 'rare' enough it will be too expensive to burn? I mean diamonds are a finite carbon based resource too - ever notice how we don't use them to reinforce concrete?

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 2:59 PM

Biff - they may hate us for the reasons you state - but they also hate us because their (form of) religion teaches them to hate all non-believers. Further I NEVER said they hate us for our success or freedom - I said their hatred threatens us.

And sure models can overstate supplies as well - SO WHAT - I am advocating TAXING oil - pick whatever reason you want to make it more expensive - I want to get off oil too BUT saying we will "run out" is just false; what will happen (if we do nothing) is LONG LONG before it runs out it will just get too expensive to use and the transition to some alternative will be infinitely more painful because we will have not prepared.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 3:09 PM

"there's no arguing with someone like that who doesn't understand the underlying logic. "

BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING LOGIC IS WRONG - a finite resource will be substituted out of usefulness LONG before its supply becomes exhausted.

Look there is oil out there that could be recovered for (lets say) $1000 a barrel (2008 dollars) - but guess what -long before oil gets to $1000 a barrel - other energy sources become cheaper (in comparison) like solar, wind, natural gas, hydrogen (whatever). So what happens - the $1000 a barrel never gets drilled, the world moves to an energy alternative and the $1000 barrel stays in the ground forever - see we didnt run out did we!

BRG - sorry - embarrassed for me or not - it is an undeniable fact that there is a religious component to Al Qaeda (for example) and you can call me every name in the book but it doesn't change the facts.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 3:24 PM

"The hatred that is taught under the guise of a religious mandate comes from the twisted minds of those who have power over an uneducated youth with no hope for job or a life. Those with the power in these situations that have a hatred for the U.S., justified or not, wield it to shape the minds of the young. In now way is this a mainstream teaching of any religion."

Well ignoring the fact that the actual terrorists (against the U.S.) have generally been shown to be reasonably well educated and middle class (for their societies) - I make no claim as to what the correct (or even "mainstream") tenets of any religion are. And I will not attempt to quantify "mainstream" either. But even an objective observer (being honest) can see that many of the the teachings of Wasabism (for example) that is promoted by Saudi Arabia (among others) around the world, teaches hatred against non-believers.

Would they hate us anyway, maybe; Did the West's current and historical "bad" actions influence these teachings or help their adoption, probably - but religious based conflicts have been around since the dawn of time and I seriously doubt that if we could fix every "wrong" we ever perpetrated that there still wouldn't be some people who based on religion alone wouldn't seek our destruction - and BTW I am certainly not saying that the Wests actions were never religiously based - or won't be again - its just that right now such naked religious fervor is currently generally not acceptable in Western Society.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 3:40 PM

BRG - who ever said anything about "Islam"???? - I said "their (form of) religion"

I don't think Jim Jones defined Christianity but his "(form of) religion" certainly advocated things that are despicable (like the mass killing children for example).

All I said was that religious based hatred was a component in the Middle East's hatred of the West. If your politically correct brain can't comprehend that basic fact then I am sorry for you.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 3:44 PM

DBS - yeah sorry about the spelling - must have been thinking about eating Sushi later

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 3:47 PM

fsrg, please clarify...
What is their (form of) religion?

A form of religion that condones the killing of people because they are non-believers, or based solely on the location of their residence or office. A form that aggrandizes suicide bombings.

And since the motivations/justifications of the:
1st WTC Bombers;
9/11 Attackers;
Brooklyn Bridge Attacker;
Empire State Building Attacker;

are all well known - I think it is fair to say that the form of religion followed by the above perpetrators follows this form.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 4:58 PM

"CMU - with due respect, in both instincts above, the repression of women and stoning are cultural factors of the society and not based on religious belief."

But they are justified as religious tenets - which is why I used the very specific term = "(form of) religion"

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 5:01 PM

Dave are you retarded? Do you have vision or mental problems that makes you see things that arent there????

where did I EVER say that "most muslims condoned those acts"?????

I never said, implied or alluded to such a thing. However I am 1000% positive that the people who COMMITTED those acts did condone them passionately - and it is their (form of) religion which I was defining.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 5:07 PM

Biff - who tried to put "it all on them" - and you are mixing my words and positions together as well.

I never said that the only reason why the cited attacks occurred was because we are non-believers. I said that the people who committed those acts beleived (and we know this because most of them left messages explaining their actions) that their killings of "innocents" were justified because they were non-believers.

As for why these same people (or others with a similar view) do not attack Canada, Sweden or Japan - I am sure that there are a plethora of reasons including that they are much more homogeneous (thereby making blending in much harder), and they are not the center of the western world (thereby making an attack less 'impactful'). But there have been plenty of attacks by people of similar disposition on countries whose politics are far less agitating, human rights violating or aggressive then ours.

Again, no one is saying that we are innocent sitting ducks, or that "we shouldnt look at our own actions" - but that doesn't mean that these perpetrators (and their leaders) aren't intolerant, vicious killers motivated (even if partially) by religious tenets that promote/justify the killing of non-believers. Can't both things be true????
Thats all I am saying.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 5:27 PM

Dave I assure you I am not hiding behind any white sheet or anything else - if I wanted to say all muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters who condone killing innocent people - I would. But I do not believe that and specifically stated my believes in a clear coherent fashion.

The reason I used the term "form of" religion is because I think it IS important to distinguish the people who commit these atrocities from the billions of others who do not condone such action but whose "religion" while totally different, may share the same generalized name.

Sorry if that distinction is not important in your world. But in my world; words are important and have meaning.

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 5:37 PM

Biff - but you are putting two seperate things together improperly.

Yes I did say that our foreign suppliers of oil hate us - which YOU agreed with and then YOU cited reasons (all of which put ALL of the blame on Western/US policies).

THEN without arguing against the reasons YOU cited, I offered an ADDITIONAL one - religious intolerance/fanaticism

Posted by: fsrg at December 4, 2008 6:00 PM