« Brand-New Rentals at 379 Lefferts Avenue Bird Blog: Week 23 »

December 5, 2008

Majority of Readers Opposed to Bridge Tolls

bridge-poll-1208.jpgAlthough the pro-toll crowd dominated in the comments section, the people have spoken: According to our poll yesterday, roughly 2/3 of readers are opposed to charging drivers to cross the Brooklyn, Manhattan and W'burg bridges. Guess Marty's on the right side of this one.




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:10 AM | Comments (30)
Categories: Transportation

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7491

Comments

"Guess Marty's on the right side of this one."

Yes - because of course leadership is best demonstrated by sticking your finger in the air and seeing which way the popular opinion winds are blowing!

Posted by: fsrg at December 5, 2008 11:21 AM

Interesting results. But what was the consensus on backpacks, terrorism, womens rights and religion? I thought that was the point of the thread! :-)

Perhaps most interesting is the number of people who voted. Assuming one could only vote once, there were 869 individuals who cast a vote. Presumably others read story and some of the comments. So likely well over 1,000 individuals clicked on that thread alone yesterday. That's a lot of people! Seems the rumors of Brownstoner's demise (and shark jumping) have been greatly exaggerated.

Biff (Someday this disclaimer's gonna end)

*Disclaimer-Warning: My view and opinion expressed above does not necessarily represent the opinions of other posters or the directors, officers and employees or advertisers of this blog.*

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 5, 2008 11:24 AM

What about this idea of a f*&^ing payroll tax??? Yes, I know its small but these things never go away and tend to grow. This is one of the primary reasons Philadelphia continues to have so many problems.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 5, 2008 11:25 AM

When I take the subway to Manhattan, I use publically-funded infrastructure that is expensive to maintain and I have to pay to use it. When I drive to Manhattan, I use publically-funded infrastructure that is expensive to maintain ... and it's free. What is the distinction that I am missing here?

Posted by: g man at December 5, 2008 11:27 AM

yeah Marty's right because a majority of _brownstoner_ readers say so

Posted by: blackstoner at December 5, 2008 11:27 AM

DIBS - whats this? - tell me more

Posted by: dittoburg at December 5, 2008 11:28 AM

How many Asshats even own a car here on Brownstoner??!!!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at December 5, 2008 11:31 AM

Actually Biff, this is shaping up to be the highest traffic week ever. That said, advertising is weaker this month, due in part, we assume, to the market and in part to the holiday season. We shall see.

Posted by: brownstoner at December 5, 2008 11:35 AM

Well g-man, are you aware of how much of your city, state, and federal income tax goes into highways, streets, and bridges? Some of the sales tax goes there too. How about how much of a gallon of gas and a quart of oil for your car is actually a built-in tax that goes straight to the roads and bridges funds of the state and fed (I'll give you a hint - a LOT)? So it's not exactly free. How do you think the other billion miles of this countries roadways are paid for and maintained? Tolls? Hardly.

Posted by: williamsburgguy at December 5, 2008 11:35 AM

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12052008/postopinion/editorials/tax_payrolls__kill_jobs_142760.htm

Yes, its only 0.33% and you don't pay it , your employer does but it's ridiculous. Especially whenm it's proposed by the f^%$ing MTA who can't manage their way out of a paper bag.

HOW ABOUT AN ACROSS THE BOARD SALARY CUT FOR MTA EMPLOYEES THE WAY IT WORKS FOR EVERY OTHER BUSINESS?????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 5, 2008 11:36 AM

Mr. B, that's great news about the traffic. Thanks for sharing the info. Hopefully the advertising will pick up and our brief one-liners directed at a couple of the ads didn't cause you to lose their business. We'll try to behave (in that area at least) going forward.

Biff

Someday this disclaimer's gonna end...

*Disclaimer-Warning: My view and opinion expressed above does not necessarily represent the opinions of other posters or the directors, officers and employees or advertisers of this blog.*

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 5, 2008 11:42 AM

"When I take the subway to Manhattan, I use publically-funded infrastructure that is expensive to maintain and I have to pay to use it. When I drive to Manhattan, I use publically-funded infrastructure that is expensive to maintain ... and it's free. What is the distinction that I am missing here?"

nice spin but to be fair your subway ride is quite subsidized and costs more than someone driving own car over the bridge....but does not matter.

Most of our (meaning Brownstoner readers) perspective is from having good subway access near our home, and work, working typical 9 to 5ish jobs in midtown/downtown Manhattan. But we are blind or don't give a rat's ass about those that don't a) work day shifts but get off work at midnight or after b) live in areas that require walk, bus and subway (twice/3 times as long as ParkSlope commute) c) are a bit older, frailer, etc
d) work not in Manhattan (or at least mid/downtown) but drive over the bridge to get to NJ, Bronx, Westchester, etc and public tranport not a viable option
e) combination of the above

So we think those people should pay $40-$50 a week more to get to work and we kvetch that will cost us another $4-5.

Posted by: Petebklyn at December 5, 2008 11:43 AM

williamsburgguy, you completely missed g-man's point.

the point is that my taxes pay for BOTH the roads/bridges AND the subway

yet i still have to pay a fare to use the subway, while drivers on the bridges don't

Posted by: 11215 at December 5, 2008 12:03 PM

why bailout the MTA? They are in this position because of poor management, horrible labor negotiations, and mediocre to poor service for riders. Why not let them go into the government version of Chapter 11?
They should declare bankrupcy or insolvency or whatever and start re-building from scratch. Money is not their problem, mis-management is their problem. In good times, in bad times, the MTA is always a basketcase.
If they get their new payroll tax, that will be the end. It will be like giving an alcoholic the keys to the liquor store.

Posted by: sam at December 5, 2008 12:04 PM

"Actually Biff, this is shaping up to be the highest traffic week ever. That said, advertising is weaker this month, due in part, we assume, to the market and in part to the holiday season. We shall see."


RRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brownstoner please stop it! You are full of it! If the number are up then why do you have to defend it? Last year no one would hear from you and now you are on every blasted thread defending your Blog hit numbers!

Shark Jumping is fun, eh?? Use some explosives to give it some pizzaz!

The What ( I shoot sharks)

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at December 5, 2008 12:06 PM

It's the American way - we want services but don't want to pay for them. Did you expect a poll of professional NIMBY'rs to go any other way?

Posted by: lalaland at December 5, 2008 12:22 PM

The MTA needs to be rebuilt, restructured, whatever you want to call it. They need to be replaced with responsible people who are interested in creating and maintaining a competent plan for dealing with New York City's transportation needs. It's very simple in this case, get rid of the thieving joke of an organization that is destroying our finances daily and require whatever you replace it with to have some transparency. Can you imagine what happens if you start giving the MTA all of these things they want (our money)? Where does our money go ... it will never stop!

Posted by: werner at December 5, 2008 12:25 PM

1- One of the best ways to increase property values in Brooklyn (anywhere, really) is to reduce traffic (houses on quiet streets are worth more than on highly trafficked streets).
2- One of the best ways to decrease traffic is to charge more to drive.
Every Brooklyn homeowner -- particularly those with a good transit option -- should favor tolling the bridges. Most of the traffic on Flatbush, Atlantic, Eastern Parkway, etc., is through traffic! Why are we paying the price for other people's convenience?

Posted by: brooklynrulz at December 5, 2008 12:27 PM

A free Koran at every toll booth :)

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 5, 2008 12:29 PM

If motorists get a free crossing from Brooklyn to Manhattan, which are linked by a dozen or so subways, why should my wife have to pay a toll to drive to Staten Island? Nobody wants to pay tolls, or subway fares, or taxes, but infrastructure has to be paid for by somebody, the only question is who. But I wholly agree that the MTA's mismanagement should disqualify them from any further subsidies until they get their act together.

Posted by: Sparafucile at December 5, 2008 12:37 PM

A payroll tax is the single worst idea that could be proposed in any environment. Why would any sane person even consider this option ??? Companies are stuggling, mass layoffs occuring so lets hit them harder !! I agree with thoughts on the above threads. Let the MTA go into bankruptcy and re-org, starting with the muppets who call themselves management.

Posted by: 10thStreetReno at December 5, 2008 12:56 PM

ahhhh, because there are more car owners here than not mister brownstoner. obviously they would say no. marty is NOT right on this, and neither are you

Posted by: Dora Chica at December 5, 2008 12:58 PM

Honestly, the deciding factor for me on this one is the thought that my 10 dollar cab ride would instantly turn into a 15 dollar cab ride. Which sucks. Unless the toll would only happen during business hours.

I just don't know if I can stomach that taxi fare increase. Especially because I only take cabs late at night, when the trains run less, and now they'll be running EVEN LESS with these cutbacks. WTF! Guess that means I won't be going out in manhattan ever again.

Posted by: ozfactor at December 5, 2008 2:17 PM

The problem is once these tolls are put up it will be forever. It is like herpes, once you get it, its for ever

Posted by: hannible at December 5, 2008 2:56 PM

First time we've ever discussed herpes here I believe.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 5, 2008 3:00 PM

I love the idea that driving on a public street is now seen as some sort of privilige to pay for. So ridiculous. Woe to any politician who imposes tolls on the east river bridges. They will never win another election again. Here or anywhere.

Posted by: sam at December 5, 2008 3:41 PM

A $10 ride doesn't go to $15 goes to $18.30 because cabs require you pay tolls both ways. Proposal is with easy pass $4.+ each way and $5 without.

Posted by: Petebklyn at December 5, 2008 4:00 PM

It's not exactly a new idea. all the tolled bridges and tunnels we have now are public streets

Posted by: 11215 at December 5, 2008 4:02 PM

Many on this blog believe that people should pay for the privilige of driving on streets in Manhattan. While this idea works in oligarchies like Singapore and class-oriented places like England (if the common folk get off the streets, the persons of quality will make faster progress) it will not work in an egalitarian country like the US. The notion that the poor should be shooed-off the streets by high tolls so that the fat cats have an easier and faster commutes will not gain wide political acceptance.
I also sense that people are getting pretty fed up with bicycle lobby dictating how people should and should not get around town.

Posted by: sam at December 5, 2008 5:16 PM

putting a toll on the bridges inside the city is very elitist. Effectivly reducing ease of access and general fluidity of movement to the wealthier.

When your proposing tolls as a way to make YOUR neighberhood nicer and increasing YOUR property value, its even more elitist and really an inverse form of NIMBYism.

Double the complications of living on an island which is best connected to the mainland through ANOTHER island.... but hey paying 2 tolls in the SAME CITY is awesome great right!!?

I wont even begin to mention the Cab fares.

I don't have a car, i prefer the bike where my awesome subway access doesnt cover things... but i still see how wrong and greedy the toll would be.

I rent cars (when i need them) in manhattan (access and availability is FAR better there for rentals), so now i should pay a double toll to get to my apartment and go wherever i need to go? Not to mention some car companies (hertz & dollar) charge a 55$ fee if you live in the outer boroughs.

not to mention a toll would only diminish brooklyn's "up-scale" neighborhoods (potential home buyers would have yet another financial reason to prefer manhattan), and further divide the city into poor and rich areas.

we really should be trying to keep our WHOLE city as integrated as possible, with as few barriers as we can feasibly support.

This of course doesnt stand so well when talking about the verazano. That bridge is HUGE, and services a bourogh that should be part of new jersey.

why do we keep encouraging taxes on people who dont live in manhhatan?

--lionballs

Posted by: lionballs at December 6, 2008 11:46 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions