MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
Collapse
"Dave Thom"
"Dave Thom"
Subject: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 16:06
I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by subways. It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for errands and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that does not make it right. Set up the electronic toll line at what could reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester.
Collapse
Rita L. McKee
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 16:25
I heartily agree. You express the argument very lucidly. If they press to toll the Broadway Bridge, I will join any protest. Rita L. McKee 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 New York, NY 10033 917.526.0050 _______________________________________________________ Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) Candidate for Chair, 2009 term -----Original Message-----
Show quoted text
From: Dave Thom <dgthom@...> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 4:06 pm Subject: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by subways. It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for errands and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that does not make it right. Set up the electronic toll line at what could reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester. -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228424793261 To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions.
Perhaps I am not understanding your situation fully, but I do not see a need to own a car for running errands in Westchester and the Bronx. We are saturated with shops and services here in Inwood and Kingsbridge, all of which are easily accessible on foot and by bicycle, bus, and subway/el. We also have excellent subway connections to retail and services downtown. Why drive to Westchester when we have complete retail environments right here? Marble Hill residents not only have buses but the 1 train and Metro-North to get downtown quickly. It is very easy to live car-free in Inwood, Washington Heights, and Marble Hill, unless one's workplace is remote and difficult to access by mass transit--but the issue raised here was owning a car for running errands. Driving a car generates pollution, takes up valuable street space, and endangers other people's lives. When there are so many reasonable transportation alternatives to driving a car here, it makes sense as a matter of public policy to charge a premium for doing so. Dave Thom wrote:
Show quoted text
> I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where > the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by subways. > It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens > Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. > > But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 > to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for errands > and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on > the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no > doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being > stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly > faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. > > Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll > every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that > does not make it right. Set up the electronic toll line at what could > reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave > upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. > > I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a > disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer > cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be > accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local > traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable > streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what > infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car > for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester. > > > -- > Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228424793261 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions. > >
I live in Inwood. I don't own a car. My trips to the Bronx for shopping involve either a long-ish walk or $4 in bus and/or subway fares. Why should those who choose to drive -- clogging the streets, polluting the air, endangering pedestrians, etc. -- pay nothing? This is not about punishing locals. It's about equality -- assessing a fee (or tax, whatever) on what is for most an easily-avoidable behavior, and one that the rest of us are already taxed for in terms of dangerous, crowded streets, noise and air pollution, and so on. I would love a slightly faster ride on the Bx7, Bx12, the M100 -- all of which would benefit from fewer cars on Broadway heading to and from the bridge. There's no way the UES and UWS will stand for a toll wall in their neighborhoods. We tried that already with congestion pricing. Bridge tolls are a far more feasible solution.
Collapse
Rita L. McKee
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 16:36
Have to disagree. Broadway is a local street, not a highway, unlike the feeds across other bridges. I'd say don't toll for at least a year, and survey the traffic to see if it increases significantly. If it does, then toll - but give local residents a hefty discount. Rita L. McKee 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 New York, NY 10033 917.526.0050 _______________________________________________________ Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) Candidate for Chair, 2009 term -----Original Message-----
Show quoted text
From: Urbanis <inwoodist@...> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll Perhaps I am not understanding your situation fully, but I do not see a need to own a car for running errands in Westchester and the Bronx. We are saturated with shops and services here in Inwood and Kingsbridge, all of which are easily accessible on foot and by bicycle, bus, and subway/el. We also have excellent subway connections to retail and services downtown. Why drive to Westchester when we have complete retail environments right here? Marble Hill residents not only have buses but the 1 train and Metro-North to get downtown quickly. It is very easy to live car-free in Inwood, Washington Heights, and Marble Hill, unless one's workplace is remote and difficult to acce ss by mass transit--but the issue raised here was owning a car for running errands. Driving a car generates pollution, takes up valuable street space, and endangers other people's lives. When there are so many reasonable transportation alternatives to driving a car here, it makes sense as a matter of public policy to charge a premium for doing so. Dave Thom wrote: > I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where > the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by subways. > It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens > Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. > > But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 > to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for errands > and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on > the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no > doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being > stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly > faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. > > Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll > every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that > does not make it right. Set up20the electronic toll line at what could > reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave > upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. > > I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a > disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer > cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be > accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local > traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable > streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what > infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car > for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester. > > > -- > Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228424793261 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions. > > -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228425987087 To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-disc ussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions.
Collapse
"Dave Thom"
"Dave Thom"
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 16:38
No question, we are in agreement when it comes to dense urban environments and central business districts - keep the cars out. I've lived in Europe, I've lived in Canada, I know my cities and how to make them great. If I was the kind of person that thinks they should have the right to drive a car into a CBD where reasonable subway options exist I would be ecstatic at being "inside the bubble" under this plan instead of outside of it. But while I am happy to take the subway every time I can for work and certain shopping trips, there are some things that cannot be easily done by foot or bike or bus or subway. Home Depot, baby supplies, trips north of the city, etc. The main issue in our disagreement is simply where to draw the line. I feel 59th St or even 96th St would be appropriate for tolling but not 225th St. 225th St is integral to the local community that stretches from 168th St to 242nd St and the local car traffic within that community is not the enemy. Execs commuting into the city at rush hour from Riverdale or Scarsdale are, and those are the people that should be targeted to switch to mass transit. There is also geography to consider -- going from LGA to Inwood? The smart route would be to go via I-87 and over the Harlem River. Under this plan this traffic will be shunted into Manhattan via Harlem River Drive instead, exactly where it should not be. In any case, I look forward to the lively discussion that this plan will encourage. - Dave
Show quoted text
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Urbanis <inwoodist@...> wrote: > Perhaps I am not understanding your situation fully, but I do not see a need > to own a car for running errands in Westchester and the Bronx. We are > saturated with shops and services here in Inwood and Kingsbridge, all of > which are easily accessible on foot and by bicycle, bus, and subway/el. We > also have excellent subway connections to retail and services downtown. Why > drive to Westchester when we have complete retail environments right here? > > Marble Hill residents not only have buses but the 1 train and Metro-North to > get downtown quickly. > > It is very easy to live car-free in Inwood, Washington Heights, and Marble > Hill, unless one's workplace is remote and difficult to access by mass > transit--but the issue raised here was owning a car for running errands. > Driving a car generates pollution, takes up valuable street space, and > endangers other people's lives. When there are so many reasonable > transportation alternatives to driving a car here, it makes sense as a > matter of public policy to charge a premium for doing so. > > Dave Thom wrote: >> >> I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where >> the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by subways. >> It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens >> Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. >> >> But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 >> to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for errands >> and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on >> the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no >> doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being >> stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly >> faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. >> >> Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll >> every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that >> does not make it right. Set up the electronic toll line at what could >> reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave >> upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. >> >> I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a >> disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer >> cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be >> accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local >> traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable >> streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what >> infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car >> for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester. >> >> >> -- >> Archive: >> http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228424793261 >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact >> inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for >> questions. >> >> > > > > -- > Archive: > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228425987087 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact > inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for > questions. > >
Collapse
Harlan Pruden
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 16:45
Have have to disagree with Rita objection. If the Broadway bridge was one of the only bridges that didn't have a toll, it would be a mess for our community. Think of all the traffic that we would have!
Show quoted text
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Rita L. McKee <rlmckee@...> wrote: > Have to disagree. Broadway is a local street, not a highway, unlike the > feeds across other bridges. > I'd say don't toll for at least a year, and survey the traffic to see if it > increases significantly. > If it does, then toll - but give local residents a hefty discount. > > Rita L. McKee > 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 > New York, NY 10033 > 917.526.0050 > _______________________________________________________ > Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising > Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) > Candidate for Chair, 2009 term > > -----Original Message----- > From: Urbanis <inwoodist@...> > To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... > Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 4:26 pm > Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge > Toll > > Perhaps I am not understanding your situation fully, but I do not see a > need to own a car for running errands in Westchester and the Bronx. We > are saturated with shops and services here in Inwood and Kingsbridge, > all of which are easily accessible on foot and by bicycle, bus, and > subway/el. We also have excellent subway connections to retail and > services downtown. Why drive to Westchester when we have complete retail > environments right here? > > Marble Hill residents not only have buses but the 1 train and > Metro-North to get downtown quickly. > > It is very easy to live car-free in Inwood, Washington Heights, and > Marble Hill, unless one's workplace is remote and difficult to acce > ss by > mass transit--but the issue raised here was owning a car for running > errands. Driving a car generates pollution, takes up valuable street > space, and endangers other people's lives. When there are so many > reasonable transportation alternatives to driving a car here, it makes > sense as a matter of public policy to charge a premium for doing so. > > > Dave Thom wrote: > > I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where >> > > the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by >> > subways. > > It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens >> > > Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. >> > > >> > > But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 >> > > to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for >> > errands > > and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on >> > > the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no >> > > doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being >> > > stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly >> > > faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. >> > > >> > > Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll >> > > every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that >> > > does not make it right. Set up20the electronic toll line at what >> > could > > reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave >> > > upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. >> > > >> > > I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a >> > > disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer >> > > cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be >> > > accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local >> > > traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable >> > > streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what >> > > infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car >> > > for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester. >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Archive: >> > > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228424793261 > > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> > inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please > contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... questions. > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > > Archive: > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228425987087 > > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > inwood-livable-streets-disc > ussion@.... Please contact > inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for > questions. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Archive: > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228426593624 > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please > contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... questions. > > -- Harlan Pruden 646.351.7360 - Cell "When I dare to be powerful - to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid." - Audre Lorde
Dave Thom wrote:
Show quoted text
> No question, we are in agreement when it comes to dense urban > environments and central business districts - keep the cars out. I've > lived in Europe, I've lived in Canada, I know my cities and how to > make them great. If I was the kind of person that thinks they should > have the right to drive a car into a CBD where reasonable subway > options exist I would be ecstatic at being "inside the bubble" under > this plan instead of outside of it. But while I am happy to take the > subway every time I can for work and certain shopping trips, there are > some things that cannot be easily done by foot or bike or bus or > subway. Home Depot, baby supplies, trips north of the city, etc. >
Hi Dave, I appreciate your clarifications. I would consider Inwood to be a dense urban environment, not a suburb. Why do you consider that there are not "reasonable subway options" here? Home Depot offers a delivery service. I'm not sure which baby supplies require a car trip--aren't they sold locally? Trips north of the city--how about Amtrak, Metro-North, a bus line, or a ZipCar? And what about online shopping?
Show quoted text
> The main issue in our disagreement is simply where to draw the line. > I feel 59th St or even 96th St would be appropriate for tolling but > not 225th St. 225th St is integral to the local community that > stretches from 168th St to 242nd St and the local car traffic within > that community is not the enemy. Execs commuting into the city at > rush hour from Riverdale or Scarsdale are, and those are the people > that should be targeted to switch to mass transit. >
I don't think anyone's "the enemy"--it's just a question of public policy favoring less-polluting, less dangerous modes of transit.
Show quoted text
> There is also geography to consider -- going from LGA to Inwood? The > smart route would be to go via I-87 and over the Harlem River. Under > this plan this traffic will be shunted into Manhattan via Harlem River > Drive instead, exactly where it should not be. >
I'd either take a bus or a cab. If I take a cab, I'm prepared to pay for tolls. I still pay less overall than I would for owning a car.
Show quoted text
> In any case, I look forward to the lively discussion that this plan > will encourage. >
As do I. -Daniel
Collapse
Maggie Clarke
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway
Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 17:12
The tolling difference that I would like to see is to remove at least the northbound toll on the Henry Hudson bridge. Kingsbridge, Marble Hill and Inwood, particularly Broadway and Riverside Drive and nearby streets like Henshaw and Seaman are CLOGGED with cars that are there entirely to avoid paying the Henry Hudson toll. We have traffic and congestion (and pollution) like crazy because of the toll on the HH. If one wants to reduce pollution and asthma in our neighborhoods, reducing or eliminating the HH toll is a good way to do it. Recommended viewing for the 21st century: www.storyofstuff.com Maggie Clarke, Ph.D. www.MaggieClarkeEnvironmental.com Environmental Scientist, Educator
Show quoted text
mclarke@... New York City
Broadway is not officially a highway, but it is used as one. It's really part of the Bway, 218th, Seaman, Dyckman on-ramp to the 9A and the west side highway. It's an off-ramp in the other direction. Aaron (Inwood car owner in favor of a toll on the Bway bridge)
Show quoted text
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Rita L. McKee <rlmckee@...> wrote: > Have to disagree. Broadway is a local street, not a highway, unlike the > feeds across other bridges. > I'd say don't toll for at least a year, and survey the traffic to see if it > increases significantly. > If it does, then toll - but give local residents a hefty discount. > > Rita L. McKee > 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 > New York, NY 10033 > 917.526.0050 > _______________________________________________________ > Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising > Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) > Candidate for Chair, 2009 term > > -----Original Message----- > From: Urbanis <inwoodist@...> > To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... > Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 4:26 pm > Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge > Toll > > Perhaps I am not understanding your situation fully, but I do not see a > need to own a car for running errands in Westchester and the Bronx. We > are saturated with shops and services here in Inwood and Kingsbridge, > all of which are easily accessible on foot and by bicycle, bus, and > subway/el. We also have excellent subway connections to retail and > services downtown. Why drive to Westchester when we have complete retail > environments right here? > > Marble Hill residents not only have buses but the 1 train and > Metro-North to get downtown quickly. > > It is very easy to live car-free in Inwood, Washington Heights, and > Marble Hill, unless one's workplace is remote and difficult to acce > ss by > mass transit--but the issue raised here was owning a car for running > errands. Driving a car generates pollution, takes up valuable street > space, and endangers other people's lives. When there are so many > reasonable transportation alternatives to driving a car here, it makes > sense as a matter of public policy to charge a premium for doing so. > > > Dave Thom wrote: > > I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where >> > > the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by >> > subways. > > It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens >> > > Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. >> > > >> > > But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 >> > > to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for >> > errands > > and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on >> > > the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no >> > > doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being >> > > stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly >> > > faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. >> > > >> > > Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll >> > > every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that >> > > does not make it right. Set up20the electronic toll line at what >> > could > > reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave >> > > upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. >> > > >> > > I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a >> > > disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer >> > > cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be >> > > accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local >> > > traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable >> > > streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what >> > > infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car >> > > for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester. >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Archive: >> > > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228424793261 > > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to >> > inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please > contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... questions. > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > > Archive: > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228425987087 > > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > inwood-livable-streets-disc > ussion@.... Please contact > inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for > questions. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Archive: > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228426593624 > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please > contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... questions. > >
Collapse
"Dave Thom"
"Dave Thom"
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 17:20
Many easy answers to that concern if you think about it: - I don't think 207th St bridge should be tolled either as it is also a local road serving the Inwood-Heights community. So where would that traffic come from? Someone who is going to drive up to 225th St from 145th St in the Bronx and then back down to 145th St in Manhattan in order to avoid paying a toll on the 145th St bridge? I don't think so. - A toll wall would still go up somewhere north of midtown (something that Brad correctly points out will be difficult to pull off given the strong UWS and UES political voices). This toll wall will keep the through traffic out of Inwood if they still have to pay somewhere, so the effect is the same as a toll on the Bway bridge for them. - People said the same when Henry Hudson Parkway was built with a toll bridge and Bway remained free. Didn't happen. (see "The Power Broker") Inwood is its own little world and Bway Bridge is part of that world. Don't split it.
Show quoted text
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Harlan Pruden <hpruden@...> wrote: > Have have to disagree with Rita objection. If the Broadway bridge was one of > the only bridges that didn't have a toll, it would be a mess for our > community. Think of all the traffic that we would have!
Collapse
"Dave Thom"
"Dave Thom"
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 17:28
Ok, I'll bite!
Show quoted text
> Hi Dave, I appreciate your clarifications. I would consider Inwood to be a > dense urban environment, not a suburb. Why do you consider that there are > not "reasonable subway options" here? Home Depot offers a delivery service. > I'm not sure which baby supplies require a car trip--aren't they sold > locally? Trips north of the city--how about Amtrak, Metro-North, a bus line, > or a ZipCar? And what about online shopping?
I don't feel that Inwood has the jobs, retail or commerce to be considered a CBD or even a sizable subnode of one. It is a bedroom community that happens to be very densely populated. As for the examples I cited, these are admittedly very subjective and somewhat contextual to whether one is a cheapskate (as I am). I like buying baby formula for $10 a can at Costco, not $28.50 a can at Duane Reade. Amtrak doesn't go to the west side of the Hudson River and I've tried taking the bus to go skiing - it sucks. Renovation materials at Home Depot are deliverable, and I have taken the subway to the Chelsea store at times to cart home a few items. But nothing beats getting mulch, plants, pipe insulation, fixtures and such by car. (Of course, for such major, rare trips as these, what's $2 in tolls? Not exactly consistent with my argument about day-to-day commerce. But on the internet one is allowed to be a little flawed in their reasoning.)
Show quoted text
> I don't think anyone's "the enemy"--it's just a question of public policy > favoring less-polluting, less dangerous modes of transit.
Fair enough, I'm all for that, just in the middle of the city, not the edge of it.
Show quoted text
>> >> There is also geography to consider -- going from LGA to Inwood? The >> smart route would be to go via I-87 and over the Harlem River. Under >> this plan this traffic will be shunted into Manhattan via Harlem River >> Drive instead, exactly where it should not be. >> > > I'd either take a bus or a cab. If I take a cab, I'm prepared to pay for > tolls. I still pay less overall than I would for owning a car. >>
My point is that your cabbie isn't stupid - he will take Triborough and Harlem River Drive rather than I-87 to avoid paying two tolls (Triborough and an East River Bridge). This will shunt a lot of extra traffic onto a jammed Triborough and into southern Inwood. On with the fun!
But so is tolling the Broadway Bridge, no? On 2008-12-04 17:12, Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. wrote:
Show quoted text
> The tolling difference that I would like to see is to remove at least the > northbound toll on the Henry Hudson bridge. Kingsbridge, Marble > Hill and Inwood, particularly Broadway and Riverside Drive and nearby > streets like Henshaw and Seaman are CLOGGED with cars that are there > entirely to avoid paying the Henry Hudson toll. We have traffic and > congestion (and pollution) like crazy because of the toll on the > HH. If one wants to reduce pollution and asthma in our > neighborhoods, reducing or eliminating the HH toll is a good way to do > it. > > Recommended viewing for the 21st century: > > www.storyofstuff.com > > Maggie Clarke, Ph.D. > > > > www.MaggieClarkeEnvironmental.com > Environmental Scientist, > Educator > mclarke@... > New York City
One-way tolls (inbound) are the right idea.
I, too, have always thought that skiing was much more convenient when leaving from Inwood. Where does everyone go? It's at least 45 minutes less than leaving from downtown, whether one goes over the GW or up 87. I still think that inbound tolls are OK, but outbound tolls are unnecessary.
Thank you for your honesty, Dave. Enough said. On 2008-12-04 17:28, Dave Thom wrote:
Show quoted text
> Ok, I'll bite! > > > Hi Dave, I appreciate your clarifications. I would consider Inwood to be a > > dense urban environment, not a suburb. Why do you consider that there are > > not "reasonable subway options" here? Home Depot offers a delivery > > service.
I'm not sure which baby supplies require a car trip--aren't
Show quoted text
> > they sold
locally? Trips north of the city--how about Amtrak,
Show quoted text
> > Metro-North, a bus line,
or a ZipCar? And what about online shopping?
Show quoted text
> > I don't feel that Inwood has the jobs, retail or commerce to be > considered a CBD or even a sizable subnode of one. It is a bedroom > community that happens to be very densely populated. As for the > examples I cited, these are admittedly very subjective and somewhat > contextual to whether one is a cheapskate (as I am). I like buying > baby formula for $10 a can at Costco, not $28.50 a can at Duane Reade. > Amtrak doesn't go to the west side of the Hudson River and I've tried > taking the bus to go skiing - it sucks. Renovation materials at Home > Depot are deliverable, and I have taken the subway to the Chelsea > store at times to cart home a few items. But nothing beats getting > mulch, plants, pipe insulation, fixtures and such by car. (Of course, > for such major, rare trips as these, what's $2 in tolls? Not exactly > consistent with my argument about day-to-day commerce. But on the > internet one is allowed to be a little flawed in their reasoning.) > > > > I don't think anyone's "the enemy"--it's just a question of public policy > > favoring less-polluting, less dangerous modes of transit. > > Fair enough, I'm all for that, just in the middle of the city, not the > edge of it. > > >> > >> There is also geography to consider -- going from LGA to Inwood? The > >> smart route would be to go via I-87 and over the Harlem River. Under > >> this plan this traffic will be shunted into Manhattan via Harlem River > >> Drive instead, exactly where it should not be. > >> > > > > I'd either take a bus or a cab. If I take a cab, I'm prepared to pay for > > tolls. I still pay less overall than I would for owning a car. > >> > > My point is that your cabbie isn't stupid - he will take Triborough > and Harlem River Drive rather than I-87 to avoid paying two tolls > (Triborough and an East River Bridge). This will shunt a lot of extra > traffic onto a jammed Triborough and into southern Inwood. > > On with the fun!
Collapse
Rita L. McKee
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 17:55
By tolling the Broadway Bridge, you'd effectively be tolling Manhattanites to go a few blocks WITHIN Manhattan by car. Not sure how that's "fair" - especially given the economic status of most of our residents. Tolling the highway (87) would make more sense. And I agree with Maggie, tolling the NB HH makes no sense whatsoever - you shouldn't have to pay to get OUT of Manhattan. By the way... someone mentioned equity earlier in re: motorists. You weren't actually suggesting that only cyclists get a free ride, were you? If they use city streets and city-maintained bike paths.... should they pay a license fee, at least, to support maintenance of same? R Rita L. McKee 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 New York, NY 10033 917.526.0050 _______________________________________________________ Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) -----Original Message-----
Show quoted text
From: Dave Thom <dgthom@...> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 5:20 pm Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll Many easy answers to that concern if you think about it: - I don't think 207th St bridge should be tolled either as it is also a local road serving the Inwood-Heights community. So where would that traffic come from? Someone who is going to drive up to 225th St from 145th St in the Bronx and then back down to 145th St in Manhattan in order to avoid paying a toll on the 145th St bridge? I don't think so. - A toll wall would still go up somewhere north of midtown (something that Brad correctly points out will be difficult to pull off given the strong UWS and UES political voices). This toll wall will keep the through traffic out of Inwood if they still have to pay somewhere, so the effect is the same as a toll on the Bway bridge for them. - People said the same when Henry Hudson Parkway was built with a toll bridge and Bway remained free. Didn't happen. (see "The Power Broker") Inwood is its own little world and Bway Bridge is part of that world. Don't split it. On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Harlan Pruden <hpruden@...> wrote: > Have have to disagree with Rita objection. If the Broadway bridge was one of > the only bridges that didn't have a toll, it would be a mess for our > community. Think of all the traffic that we would have! -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228429219277 To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions.
My thoughts exactly, Brad. On 4 Dec 2008, at 17:29, Brad Aaron wrote:
Show quoted text
> But so is tolling the Broadway Bridge, no? > > On 2008-12-04 17:12, Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. wrote: >> The tolling difference that I would like to see is to remove at >> least the >> northbound toll on the Henry Hudson bridge. Kingsbridge, Marble >> Hill and Inwood, particularly Broadway and Riverside Drive and nearby >> streets like Henshaw and Seaman are CLOGGED with cars that are there >> entirely to avoid paying the Henry Hudson toll. We have traffic and >> congestion (and pollution) like crazy because of the toll on the >> HH. If one wants to reduce pollution and asthma in our >> neighborhoods, reducing or eliminating the HH toll is a good way to >> do >> it.
| JEREMY R. GINSBURG
Show quoted text
| e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
Hi Rita, I think the point is for public policy to encourage mode-shift away from automobiles to mass transit, cycling, and walking, because these generate less pollution, less energy dependence, use less street space, and, in the case of cycling and walking, promote health (thus lowering public health costs). Commuting by bicycle can also benefit mass transit by lessening overcrowding on buses and subways. Transportation Alternatives promotes a "green transportation hierarchy" (see http://www.transalt.org/about), which gives preference to modes of transportation based on their benefits and costs to society. Pedestrianism is at the top of that hierarchy, followed by cycling, and mass transit in third place. (Single-occupany motor vehicles are, not surprisingly, at the bottom.) There are many actual and perceived obstacles to commuter cycling in New York, with heavy automobile traffic and lack of secure bicycle parking probably being the biggest. Adding a license fee only adds another obstacle. The wear and tear exerted on a roadway by a bicycle is so much less than that of a motor vehicle, and in my mind, it makes about as much sense as licensing pedestrians to pay for the maintenance of sidewalks. Why as a society would we want to discourage cycling and walking? (NB: I am in complete agreement with you that reckless behavior by cyclists should not be tolerated.) And of course, everyone pays for road and sidewalk maintenance via taxes. I would hate for this discussion to become an us-vs.-them argument. I switch between transporation modes all the time (walking, cycling, bus, subway, taxi, and I even drive occasionally). In my view, it's more a question of charging appropriately per transportation mode: I should be able to walk and ride my own bicycle for free, because these are the least costly modes of transportation to society. I should be able to ride mass transit for at least a low fare. Driving a private vehicle should be the most costly option. Best, Daniel Rita L. McKee wrote:
Show quoted text
> By the way... someone mentioned equity earlier in re: motorists. > You weren't actually suggesting that only cyclists get a free ride, > were you? > If they use city streets and city-maintained bike paths.... should > they pay a license fee, at least, to support maintenance of same? > > R
Collapse
jginsbu
Subject: Re: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 18:51
On 4 Dec 2008, at 17:50, Noah Osnos wrote:
Show quoted text
> One-way tolls (inbound) are the right idea.
One-way tolls inevitably create distortions in traffic patterns that can have severe adverse impacts. Just look at the results on one-way tolling on the Verrazano and PA tunnels... | JEREMY R. GINSBURG
Show quoted text
| e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
As Maggie and others have observed, it did happen. Inwood already experiences congestion from drivers avoiding the HH Bridge toll. On 4 Dec 2008, at 17:20, Dave Thom wrote:
Show quoted text
> - People said the same when Henry Hudson Parkway was built with a toll > bridge and Bway remained free. Didn't happen. (see "The Power > Broker") > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Harlan Pruden <hpruden@...> > wrote: >> Have have to disagree with Rita objection. If the Broadway bridge >> was one of >> the only bridges that didn't have a toll, it would be a mess for our >> community. Think of all the traffic that we would have! | JEREMY R. GINSBURG | e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
On 4 Dec 2008, at 17:55, Rita L. McKee wrote:
Show quoted text
> By the way... someone mentioned equity earlier in re: motorists. > You weren't actually suggesting that only cyclists get a free ride, > were you? > If they use city streets and city-maintained bike paths.... should > they pay a license fee, at least, to support maintenance of same?
The overwhelming majority of road maintenance costs are due to cars and (in particular) trucks, and these are not even close to being covered by license fees, gas taxes, tolls, etc. When drivers are actually paying anything close to the costs they impose, I'm confident cyclists won't mind paying their fair but miniscule share. | JEREMY R. GINSBURG
Show quoted text
| e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
Rita, I second Daniel on the societal benefits of bikes, and I have to say that, given your position on the CB12 Transportation Committee, I am troubled that you would equate cycling with driving. You are also certainly aware that, according to census data, only 20 percent of Upper Manhattan households own cars, and that those 20 percent generally have higher incomes than car-free residents. Not only is it fair to institute tolls to benefit the car-free majority, but not having tolls places an unfair burden on those with lower incomes who can't afford to drive and must rely on transit. Finally: Why does anyone have to drive to "go a few blocks"? Brad On 2008-12-04 17:55, Rita L. McKee wrote:
Show quoted text
> By tolling the Broadway Bridge, you'd effectively be tolling > Manhattanites to go a few blocks WITHIN Manhattan by car. > Not sure how that's "fair" - especially given the economic status of > most of our residents. > Tolling the highway (87) would make more sense. > And I agree with Maggie, tolling the NB HH makes no sense whatsoever - > you shouldn't have to pay to get OUT of Manhattan. > > By the way... someone mentioned equity earlier in re: motorists. > You weren't actually suggesting that only cyclists get a free ride, > were you? > If they use city streets and city-maintained bike paths.... should they > pay a license fee, at least, to support maintenance of same? > > R > > Rita L. McKee > 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 > New York, NY 10033 > 917.526.0050 > _______________________________________________________ > Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising > Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Thom <dgthom@...> > To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... > Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 5:20 pm > Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway > Bridge Toll > > > > > > > Many easy answers to that concern if you think about it: > > - I don't think 207th St bridge should be tolled either as it is also > a local road serving the Inwood-Heights community. So where would > that traffic come from? Someone who is going to drive up to 225th St > from 145th St in the Bronx and then back down to 145th St in Manhattan > in order to avoid paying a toll on the 145th St bridge? I don't think > so. > > - A toll wall would still go up somewhere north of midtown (something > that Brad correctly points out will be difficult to pull off given the > strong UWS and UES political voices). This toll wall will keep the > through traffic out of Inwood if they still have to pay somewhere, so > the effect is the same as a toll on the Bway bridge for them. > > - People said the same when Henry Hudson Parkway was built with a toll > bridge and Bway remained free. Didn't happen. (see "The Power > Broker") > > Inwood is its own little world and Bway Bridge is part of that world. > Don't split it. > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Harlan Pruden <hpruden@...> wrote: > > Have have to disagree with Rita objection. If the Broadway bridge was > one of > > the only bridges that didn't have a toll, it would be a mess for our > > community. Think of all the traffic that we would have! > > > -- > Archive: > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228429219277 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... > Please contact > inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... > for questions. > > > > > >
But isn't that effect mostly related to commercial traffic? E.g. if you must take the Verrazano to work on Long Island, why would you come back to New Jersey via the Lincoln Tunnel? Not to be combative, but can you point me to data on the negative effects of one-way tolling? ----- Original Message -----
Show quoted text
From: "Jeremy Ginsburg" <jginsbu@...> To: <inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll > On 4 Dec 2008, at 17:50, Noah Osnos wrote: >> One-way tolls (inbound) are the right idea. > > > One-way tolls inevitably create distortions in traffic patterns that can > have severe adverse impacts. Just look at the results on one-way tolling > on the Verrazano and PA tunnels...
Collapse
"Dave Thom"
"Dave Thom"
Subject: Re: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-04 23:20
While crossing the Bway Bridge tonight by bus and later car I had two addtional thoughts: - tolling the bridge will have no impact on bus speeds. Traffic moves fine in the area around the bridge - and the slow speed of buses farther south is due more to lack of traffic enforcement (double parking) and the ridiculous pay-as-you-board system/lack of doors than any volume-related congestion. This is not Midtown. - the Allen Pavilion was built as much to serve the West Bronx communities as it was for Inwood. Visitors taking black cabs to the hosipital (the predominant form of transport) will now have to pay a toll to visit their own community hospital. I'll refrain from further comments now but thanks for the intelligent discussion.
Collapse
Maggie Clarke
Subject: Re: Re: MTA Plan -
Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-05 00:25
More to the point, look at the traffic patterns for this specific case. Northbound diverted traffic (from the HH) uses two routes - Henshaw - Dyckman - Seaman or Riverside - Broadway. Southbound traffic uses three routes (Payson, Seaman, Broadway). Also, the northbound routes involve more left-turning traffic and more accidents (particularly at the Henshaw-Riverside corner). The Southbound traffic turns right onto Riverside Drive and is more diffuse, since there are 3 streets. So eliminating the northbound toll will have more benefits for the neighborhood than eliminating the southbound. Removing lots of northbound traffic from the neighborhood will also permit eastbound Riverside to be made one lane so as to permit the 45 degree angle parking suggested in the Dyckman greenway connector. I wonder if DOT has ANY data on percentage of traffic in Inwood that is a direct result of avoiding the HH toll. At 09:30 PM 12/4/2008, you wrote: But isn't that effect mostly related to commercial traffic? E.g. if you must take the Verrazano to work on Long Island, why would you come back to New Jersey via the Lincoln Tunnel? Not to be combative, but can you point me to data on the negative effects of one-way tolling? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Ginsburg"
Show quoted text
<jginsbu@...> To: <inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll On 4 Dec 2008, at 17:50, Noah Osnos wrote: One-way tolls (inbound) are the right idea. One-way tolls inevitably create distortions in traffic patterns that can have severe adverse impacts. Just look at the results on one-way tolling on the Verrazano and PA tunnels... -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228444215980 To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions. Recommended viewing for the 21st century: www.storyofstuff.com Maggie Clarke, Ph.D. www.MaggieClarkeEnvironmental.com Environmental Scientist, Educator mclarke@... New York City
Collapse
Rita L. McKee
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-05 01:17
Daniel, Believe me, I understand -- and agree with -- shifting to "green" modes of transport. Both my partner and I have been members of TA for years, and our car has been sent out to pasture in upstate NY (I miss its 45 MPG on long trips, though). You speak of cycling as though it had minimal financial impact... yet building a segregated lane is not an inexpensive process; neither is bike parking; and the bike paths on both sides of Manhattan were paid for with the taxes of motorists as well as those who don't drive. The last time I looked, I didn't see any cars or trucks on either bike path, so those drivers aren't getting much direct benefit from them (the indirect benefits are, of course, manifold). Bike commuting is up tremendously over the past two years -- obviously, it's catching on, hurray! -- and the more cycles on the paths, the more maintenance they'll need. Where do those funds come from? City and state taxes, obviously... but is it equitable for cyclists not to chip in with a minimal licensing fee? Not taking a stand, just inquiring.... btw, glad to hear your concern about reckless cyclists; but how does one report an incident if one has no license number to track or report? Respectfully, Rita L. McKee 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 New York, NY 10033 917.526.0050 _______________________________________________________ Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising Second20Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) Candidate for Chair, 2009 term -----Original Message-----
Show quoted text
From: Urbanis <inwoodist@...> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 6:36 pm Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll Hi Rita, I think the point is for public policy to encourage mode-shift away from automobiles to mass transit, cycling, and walking, because these generate less pollution, less energy dependence, use less street space, and, in the case of cycling and walking, promote health (thus lowering public health costs). Commuting by bicycle can also benefit mass transit by lessening overcrowding on buses and subways. Transportation Alternatives promotes a "green transportation hierarchy" (see http://www.transalt.org/about), which gives preference to modes of transportation based on their benefits and costs to society. Pedestrianism is at the top of that hierarchy, followed by cycling, and mass transit in third place. (Single-occupany motor vehicles are, not surprisingly, at the bottom.) There are many actual and perceived obstacles to commuter cycling in New York, with heavy automobile traffic and lack of secure bicycle parking probably being the biggest. Adding a license fee only adds another obstacle. The wear and tear exerted on a roadway by a bicycle is so much less than that of a motor vehicle, and in my mind, it makes about as much sense as licensing pedestrians to pay for the maintenance of sidewalks. Why as a society would we want to discourage cycling and walking? (NB: I am in complete agreement with you that reckless behavior by cyclists should not be tolerated.) And of course, everyone pays for road and sidewalk maintenance via taxes. I would hate for this discussion to become an us-vs.-them argument. I switch between transporation modes all the time (walking, cycling, bus, subway, taxi, and I even drive occasionally). In my view, it's more a question of charging appropriately per transportation mode: I should be able to walk and ride my own bicycle for free, because these are the least costly modes of transportation to society. I should be able to ride mass transit for at least a low fare. Driving a private vehicle should be the most costly option. Best, Daniel Rita L. McKee wrote: > By the way... someone mentioned equity earlier in re: motorists. > You weren't actually suggesting that only cyclists get a free ride, > were you? > If they use city streets and city-maintained bike paths.... should > they pay a license fee, at least, to support maintenance of same? > > R -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228433820485 To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions.
Collapse
jginsbu
Subject: Re: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-05 01:44
In that case, yes, commercial traffic is the primary issue. Since trucks are not allowed on the HH Parkway, that is not the particular issue here. What is at issue is the advantage a driver gains by bypassing a toll on local streets. At present, a driver saves only $1.90 (EZ-Pass rate) by switching to local streets. Assuming that under one-way tolling the rate is doubled so as to remain (roughly) revenue neutral, a driver will double her savings to $3.80 by taking local streets and achieve that will only one diversion: bypassing the toll would be more advantageous than at present. That should lead to a substantial increase in southbound toll avoidance, combined with an increase in traffic northbound on the HH parkway. Imposing a toll on the B'way bridge, in contrast, would virtually eliminate any incentive to avoid the HH bridge toll. On 4 Dec 2008, at 21:30, Noah Osnos wrote:
Show quoted text
> But isn't that effect mostly related to commercial traffic? E.g. if > you must take the Verrazano to work on Long Island, why would you > come back to New Jersey via the Lincoln Tunnel? Not to be > combative, but can you point me to data on the negative effects of > one-way tolling? > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Ginsburg" <jginsbu@... > > > To: <inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 6:50 PM > Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Re: MTA Plan - > Broadway Bridge Toll > > >> On 4 Dec 2008, at 17:50, Noah Osnos wrote: >>> One-way tolls (inbound) are the right idea. >> >> >> One-way tolls inevitably create distortions in traffic patterns >> that can have severe adverse impacts. Just look at the results on >> one-way tolling on the Verrazano and PA tunnels... | JEREMY R. GINSBURG | e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
On 5 Dec 2008, at 01:16, Rita L. McKee wrote:
Show quoted text
> You speak of cycling as though it had minimal financial impact... > yet building a segregated lane is not an inexpensive process; > neither is bike parking; and the bike paths on both sides of > Manhattan were paid for with the taxes of motorists as well as those > who don't drive. The last time I looked, I didn't see any cars or > trucks on either bike path, so those drivers aren't getting much > direct benefit from them (the indirect benefits are, of course, > manifold). Bike commuting is up tremendously over the past two years > -- obviously, it's catching on, hurray! -- and the more cycles on > the paths, the more maintenance they'll need. Where do those funds > come from? City and state taxes, obviously... but is it equitable > for cyclists not to chip in with a minimal licensing fee?
Compared with the costs of building and maintaining roads for motor vehicles, cycling does have minimal financial impact. If one is interested in equity, subsidies for motor vehicle infrastructure is the place to start. Moreover, the marginal cost imposed by additional bike use is miniscule -- bikes just don't cause much wear and tear on roads and paths once built -- while the marginal cost imposed by additional motor vehicle traffic is much higher. That's why use-fees (tolls, congestion pricing, gas taxes, etc.) make so much sense for motor vehicles: reducing motor vehicle use substantially reduces the costs of maintaining the infrastructure. But reducing bike use does not; bike infrastructure gets dramatically more bang for the buck the more it is used, so government increases the value of its bicycle infrastructure investments by increasing bike use. For this reason, anything which deters bicycle use, like fees, actually undermines the value of bicycle infrastructure investments. (The cost-benefit analysis might go differently for commercial cyclists, however.) Finally, I doubt that any "minimal licensing fee" would generate enough revenue to make the administrative overhead required to collect it worthwhile. | JEREMY R. GINSBURG
Show quoted text
| e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
On 4 Dec 2008, at 16:36, Rita L. McKee wrote:
Show quoted text
> Have to disagree. Broadway is a local street, not a highway, unlike > the feeds across other bridges.
It's worth noting that Broadway carries quite a bit of through (non- local) truck traffic, since trucks aren't permitted on the HH Parkway or Harlem River Drive, and it offers a toll-free route from the Bronx into Manhattan with easy access to the west side of the island. | JEREMY R. GINSBURG
Show quoted text
| e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
Collapse
Rita L. McKee
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-05 03:45
Be simpler to restrict truck traffic (over a certain tonnage) to 87, wouldn't it? Rita L. McKee 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 New York, NY 10033 917.526.0050 _______________________________________________________ Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) Candidate for Chair, 2009 term -----Original Message-----
Show quoted text
From: Jeremy Ginsburg <jginsbu@...> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:14 am Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll On 4 Dec 2008, at 16:36, Rita L. McKee wrote: > Have to disagree. Broadway is a local street, not a highway, unlike > the feeds across other bridges. It's worth noting that Broadway carries quite a bit of through (non-local) truck traffic, since trucks aren't permitted on the HH Parkway or Harlem River Drive, and it offers a toll-free route from the Bronx into Manhattan with easy access to the west side of the island. | JEREMY R. GINSBURG | e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228461327143 To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-st reets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions.
Collapse
Rita L. McKee
Subject: Re: MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll
2008-12-05 04:37
Gasoline tax (.412/gal) revenue for NYC is over $100 million per year (based on 300 gallons per capita). Add car and driver licensing fees, tolls, inspection fees, plus the income and sales taxes from all motor vehicle-related businesses and income taxes from employees and you have quite the tidy sum for the state. Of course, that's offset by cost of infrastructure maintenance, pollution, national security, healthcare... TA says construction, maintenance and administration costs the city $800 million more than is collected through taxes, tolls, etc., amounting to $105/capita. Pollution, security, accidents, etc. cost $21 billion/year, or $3000/capita (interestingly, $10/gal)... and half of that cost is borne by nondrivers. MTA's annual operating budget for NYC is $10.8 billion. That's with a B. Based on 8.5 million average weekday ridership at $2/per, revenue is $6.20 billion. Bit of a shortfall there..... so a net loss. What revenue is generated by cyclists? Commuting cyclists rose 35% between 2007 and 2008 but only accounted for 12,500+ per day (NYT). Cycle shops... clothing shops... not a lot of revenue for the state there. The economics are all screwy... both in scale and in toto, for both motor vehicles and mass transit -- but there's little financial incentive to support cycling en masse. With ancillary businesses, employees and income taxes, motor vehicles have huge tentacles hooked into our economy (obviously why the De troit meltdown has seismic repercussions); mass transit appears to be heavily in the red, though it's hard to see why this should be so. Not saying any of this is RIGHT. It just IS. A paradigm shift is definitely needed.... back to nationwide mass transit, for example, pre-Standard Oil, pre-Eisenhower highways, with a 21st Century "green" twist. And I still want to see the MTA and PA figures for myself. Food for thought. Rita L. McKee 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 New York, NY 10033 917.526.0050 _______________________________________________________ Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) -----Original Message-----
Show quoted text
From: Jeremy Ginsburg <jginsbu@...> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:08 am Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway Bridge Toll On 5 Dec 2008, at 01:16, Rita L. McKee wrote: > You speak of cycling as though it had minimal financial impact... > yet building a segregated lane is not an inexpensive process; > neither is bike parking; and the bike paths on both sides of > Manhattan were paid for with the taxes of motorists as well as those > who don't drive. The last time I looked, I didn't see any cars or > trucks on either bike path, so those drivers aren't getting much > direct benefit from them (the indirect benefits are,=2 0of course, > manifold). Bike commuting is up tremendously over the past two years > -- obviously, it's catching on, hurray! -- and the more cycles on > the paths, the more maintenance they'll need. Where do those funds > come from? City and state taxes, obviously... but is it equitable > for cyclists not to chip in with a minimal licensing fee? Compared with the costs of building and maintaining roads for motor vehicles, cycling does have minimal financial impact. If one is interested in equity, subsidies for motor vehicle infrastructure is the place to start. Moreover, the marginal cost imposed by additional bike use is miniscule -- bikes just don't cause much wear and tear on roads and paths once built -- while the marginal cost imposed by additional motor vehicle traffic is much higher. That's why use-fees (tolls, congestion pricing, gas taxes, etc.) make so much sense for motor vehicles: reducing motor vehicle use substantially reduces the costs of maintaining the infrastructure. But reducing bike use does not; bike infrastructure gets dramatically more bang for the buck the more it is used, so government increases the value of its bicycle infrastructure investments by increasing bike use. For this reason, anything which deters bicycle use, like fees, actually undermines the value of bicycle infrastructure investments. (The cost-benefit analysis might go differently for commer cial cyclists, however.) Finally, I doubt that any "minimal licensing fee" would generate enough revenue to make the administrative overhead required to collect it worthwhile. | JEREMY R. GINSBURG | e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228460963341 To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for questions.
Really interesting discussion guys! I just wanted to add a few more things to think about tolls this far uptown. Upper Manhattan and the West Bronx have a seamless connection that is unique across rivers in New York City. Neighborhoods like Inwood and Washington Heights are very linked to Kingsbridge, Marble Hill (yes I know it's still Manhattan but it's across the river!), and Morris Heights. I think nothing of walking to Target in Marble Hill, and see tons of cars, walkers, and cyclists crossing the 207th Street Bridge while on the 12 Bus. I think adding a toll would change this psychology for everyone, including non-drivers. It's ok to have a toll on the Henry Hudson (aside from the points Maggie brings up) because it's mostly through-traffic that is affected, but putting a toll on the broadway or 207th st bridge is constructing a very local barrier where there currently isn't one. I grew up in the car-dependent East Bronx, and had lots of friends in Queens. I remember when I noticed now close they lived if only there wasn't a river... Whitestone and Bayside are pretty similar to Throggs Neck, Pelham Bay, and Morris Park, but there is a huge gulf because of the river. You can't even bike or walk across the Whitestone or Throggs Neck bridges! I believe it would be horrible if we lost that sort of connection here... Charley On 2008-12-05 04:37, Rita L. McKee wrote:
Show quoted text
> Gasoline tax (.412/gal) revenue for NYC is over $100 million per year > (based on 300 gallons per capita). Add car and driver licensing fees, > tolls, inspection fees, plus the income and sales taxes from all motor > vehicle-related businesses and income taxes from employees and you have > quite the tidy sum for the state. Of course, that's offset by cost of > infrastructure maintenance, pollution, national security, healthcare... > TA says construction, maintenance and administration costs the city > $800 million more than is collected through taxes, tolls, etc., > amounting to $105/capita. Pollution, security, accidents, etc. cost $21 > billion/year, or $3000/capita (interestingly, $10/gal)... and half of > that cost is borne by nondrivers. > > MTA's annual operating budget for NYC is $10.8 billion. That's with a > B. Based on 8.5 million average weekday ridership at $2/per, revenue is > $6.20 billion. Bit of a shortfall there..... so a net loss. > > What revenue is generated by cyclists? Commuting cyclists rose 35% > between 2007 and 2008 but only accounted for 12,500+ per day (NYT). > Cycle shops... clothing shops... not a lot of revenue for the state > there. > > The economics are all screwy... both in scale and in toto, for both > motor vehicles and mass transit -- but there's little financial > incentive to support cycling en masse. With ancillary businesses, > employees and income taxes, motor vehicles have huge tentacles hooked > into our economy (obviously why the De > troit meltdown has seismic > repercussions); mass transit appears to be heavily in the red, though > it's hard to see why this should be so. > > Not saying any of this is RIGHT. It just IS. A paradigm shift is > definitely needed.... back to nationwide mass transit, for example, > pre-Standard Oil, pre-Eisenhower highways, with a 21st Century "green" > twist. > > And I still want to see the MTA and PA figures for myself. > > Food for thought. > > Rita L. McKee > 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63 > New York, NY 10033 > 917.526.0050 > _______________________________________________________ > Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising > Second Vice Chair, Community Board 12 (Manhattan) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Ginsburg <jginsbu@...> > To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... > Sent: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 2:08 am > Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] MTA Plan - Broadway > Bridge Toll > > > > > > > On 5 Dec 2008, at 01:16, Rita L. McKee wrote: > > > You speak of cycling as though it had minimal financial impact... > > yet building a segregated lane is not an inexpensive process; > neither > is bike parking; and the bike paths on both sides of > Manhattan were > paid for with the taxes of motorists as well as those > who don't > drive. The last time I looked, I didn't see any cars or > trucks on > either bike path, so those drivers aren't getting much > direct benefit > from them (the indirect benefits are,=2 > 0of course, > manifold). Bike > commuting is up tremendously over the past two years > -- obviously, > it's catching on, hurray! -- and the more cycles on > the paths, the > more maintenance they'll need. Where do those funds > come from? City > and state taxes, obviously... but is it equitable > for cyclists not to > chip in with a minimal licensing fee? > > > > Compared with the costs of building and maintaining roads for motor > vehicles, cycling does have minimal financial impact. If one is > interested in equity, subsidies for motor vehicle infrastructure is the > place to start. > > > Moreover, the marginal cost imposed by additional bike use is miniscule > -- bikes just don't cause much wear and tear on roads and paths once > built -- while the marginal cost imposed by additional motor vehicle > traffic is much higher. That's why use-fees (tolls, congestion > pricing, gas taxes, etc.) make so much sense for motor vehicles: > reducing motor vehicle use substantially reduces the costs of > maintaining the infrastructure. But reducing bike use does not; bike > infrastructure gets dramatically more bang for the buck the more it is > used, so government increases the value of its bicycle infrastructure > investments by increasing bike use. For this reason, anything which > deters bicycle use, like fees, actually undermines the value of bicycle > infrastructure investments. (The cost-benefit analysis might go > differently for commer > cial cyclists, however.) > > > Finally, I doubt that any "minimal licensing fee" would generate enough > revenue to make the administrative overhead required to collect it > worthwhile. > > > | JEREMY R. GINSBURG > > | e-mail: jginsbu@... > > | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson > > > > > > > -- > > Archive: > http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228460963341 > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to > inwood-livable-streets-discussion@.... Please > contact > inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... for > questions. > > > > > > >
Collapse
Maggie Clarke
Subject: the cost of infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists, car
drivers
2008-12-05 12:13
You speak of cycling as though it had minimal financial impact... yet building a segregated lane is not an inexpensive process; neither is bike parking; and the bike paths on both sides of Manhattan were paid for with the taxes of motorists as well as those who don't drive. Maybe infrastructure for cycling and for pedestrians does not cost zero, but I'd love to see a bar graph comparing the costs of infrastructure for each alongside automobile and mass transit infrastructure. No one begrudges the costs of sidewalks to protect pedestrians from having to walk in the street with cars. We don't begrudge spending money on light poles, walk/don't walk, and traffic signals to keep people safe. We certainly don't begrudge overpasses and major highways for cars. But we get this big resistance to the thought that anything should be spent for protecting cyclists from death and injury. How much does it cost to repave streets for cars? More than putting in a curbed median and some plants to protect cyclists, for sure. We really are not asking for much expenditure at all. BTW I consider the bike parking on Dyckman west of Broadway to be badly designed. The glass structure is nice in that it has a map on one side and pro-bike ad on the other, but it sure doesn't protect bikes parked there from the elements. The first time I saw a rainstorm, it was coming in at an angle, and the bike were wet. But when I pass the four bike parking stantions (for lack of a better term) they are never empty, so expenditure for such stantions is high priority. The last time I looked, I didn't see any cars or trucks on either bike path, so those drivers aren't getting much direct benefit from them (the indirect benefits are, of course, manifold). Bike commuting is up tremendously over the past two years -- obviously, it's catching on, hurray! -- and the more cycles on the paths, the more maintenance they'll need. Where do those funds come from? City and state taxes, obviously... but is it equitable for cyclists not to chip in with a minimal licensing fee? Do pedestrians chip in for the sidewalks? Should we ask pedestrians to pay a licensing fee for using these facilities? How about a toll at all the cross streets? (Sidewalks cost more than a planted median...) Not taking a stand, just inquiring.... btw, glad to hear your concern about reckless cyclists; but how does one report an incident if one has no license number to track or report? A few nights ago, walking on Broadway from 204 southward, I encountered FOUR Domino pizza guys on the sidewalk heading north in the block and a half it took to walk to their store. I told the manager. He said he could determine, based on the time and exactly where they were, who they were. If people take the time to do this, it might not take much effort. Recommended viewing for the 21st century: www.storyofstuff.com Maggie Clarke, Ph.D. www.MaggieClarkeEnvironmental.com Environmental Scientist, Educator
Show quoted text
mclarke@... New York City
It's worth noting that Broadway carries quite a bit of through (non- local) truck traffic, since trucks aren't permitted on the HH Parkway or Harlem River Drive, and it offers a toll-free route from the Bronx into Manhattan with easy access to the west side of the island. Speaking of Broadway traffic, it is not often recognized that much of the traffic is resulting from having a big bus depot and a big Sanitation garage co-located between 215 and 219th Sts east of Broadway. The Sanitation depot houses all the trucks from FOUR Sanitation districts. CB12 is one district. We are very large as it is. But we also have Bronx 7 and 8 as well as Manhattan 8. That we have Manhattan 8 is the worst thing because that is the silk stocking district. They are down on the upper east side! That's seven miles away. Steve Simon told me years ago that they have been fighting having their own garage for years and I think because they are so well heeled they win. So Sanitation trucks trundle back and forth on Broadway spewing huge amounts of diesel (they get 7 miles to the gallon too so that's two gallons of fuel with every trip to and from CB8!) and clog our streets as well. This is a waste of city money! The two Bronx districts clog the streets of Marble Hill and upper Inwood and pollute our air centered around the Broadway Bridge. The same is true regarding that big bus depot. Though I don't know how many bus routes are housed there, I know that many from the Bronx are housed there. You can stand waiting for a bus south at 225th St and when the shift changes many routes just race by. I don't expect that anybody did a cumulative environmental impact statement when they rammed these two facilities into Inwood. And we just sit here like patsies and take it... I'll bet you that the CB doesn't even realize the impacts. Imagine Broadway and the Broadway bridge if those facilities just housed our own buses and Sanitation trucks. There would easily be room on the roadway of Broadway and the bridge for protected bike lanes if these facilities would be dedicated to just our own service vehicles. Recommended viewing for the 21st century: www.storyofstuff.com Maggie Clarke, Ph.D. www.MaggieClarkeEnvironmental.com Environmental Scientist, Educator
Show quoted text
mclarke@... New York City
All we are talking about is a toll based on the base transit fare, which our poorest neighbors pay to cross the Broadway Bridge every day. As Dave, who originated this thread, was good enough to demonstrate, there are precious few arguments against such a minimal fee that are not rooted in pure self-interest. I have yet to see an exception here. The fixation on the "costs" of biking and other red herrings, and the dismissal of inconvenient yet verifiable facts, like census data, is disheartening. Brad On 2008-12-04 16:06, Dave Thom wrote:
Show quoted text
> I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where > the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by subways. > It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens > Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. > > But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 > to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for errands > and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on > the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no > doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being > stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly > faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. > > Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll > every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that > does not make it right. Set up the electronic toll line at what could > reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave > upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. > > I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a > disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer > cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be > accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local > traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable > streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what > infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car > for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester.
Brad, I don't think it's disheartening to have a debate like this. We all want the same thing in the end (we are all members off the Inwood and Washington Heights Livable Streets group), but we may disagree on how to get there. It's good that we're thinking about this. Honestly, I would have rather have seen congestion pricing work, with the congestion zone being midtown and downtown Manhattan. In a perfect world, I would have preferred a different plan: I would rather have a much wider congestion zone that includes the whole 5 boros, perhaps more (making a congestion zone of ONLY the 5 boros would create adverse affects for neighborhoods such as Woodlawn, an urban neighborhood which is very closely linked to Yonkers and would be split in the same way that Manhattan and the West Bronx would be split). This would encourage the more suburban parts of our city to become more urban, since they're in the same zone as Manhattan, and expect to share in the same transit improvements that Manhattan would receive. When it was clear that the congestion pricing plan put forth included only Midtown and Downtown Manhattan, despite the fact I believe it would be more successful including all the 5 boros, I supported it because it's better than no pricing. If it ever becomes clear that tolling the East river along with minor streets crossing the Harlem river, I would rethink my position as well. If anything, it's heartening to have an intelligent discussion about the pros and cons of various solutions to the common problems we are trying to solve. Charley On 2008-12-05 16:46, Brad Aaron wrote:
Show quoted text
> All we are talking about is a toll based on the base transit fare, which our > poorest neighbors pay to cross the Broadway Bridge every day. > > As Dave, who originated this thread, was good enough to demonstrate, there > are precious few arguments against such a minimal fee that are not rooted > in pure self-interest. I have yet to see an exception here. > > The fixation on the "costs" of biking and other red herrings, and the > dismissal of inconvenient yet verifiable facts, like census data, is > disheartening. > > Brad > > > > On 2008-12-04 16:06, Dave Thom wrote: > > I'm all for tolling the East River Bridges -- that's downtown, where > > the concentration of jobs are, and the area is well served by subways. > > It also makes sense, given the tolls on the Queensboro, Queens > > Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, etc. > > > > But to toll the Broadway Bridge at the cost of a subway fare? $2.50 > > to use what to Inwoodites is just a local street traversed for errands > > and regular commerce? How is that part of funding better subways on > > the Upper East Side? Marble Hill residents will be thrilled, no > > doubt, to have to pay to go from Manhattan to Manhattan while being > > stuck with no visible transit improvements other than a slightly > > faster ride on the Bx7 over the bridge. > > > > Given the physical nature of the river, it's tempting to just toll > > every bridge, which is exactly what the MTA plan suggests. But that > > does not make it right. Set up the electronic toll line at what could > > reasonably considered midtown Manhattan -- 59th St, say, and leave > > upper Manhattanites to go about their daily lives in peace. > > > > I realize that arguing for free bridges equals arguing against a > > disincentive for cars, and streets would be more livable with fewer > > cars on them, but the effect of discouraging through traffic can be > > accomplished with a toll wall at 59th St or even 96th St. Local > > traffic is not the enemy here and the press for intelligent, livable > > streets should not get caught up with punishing locals for doing what > > infrastructure and geography made a reasonable choice -- owning a car > > for running errands in the Bronx and Westchester. >
Air particle measurement was taken in the South Bronx by Cornell Cooperative Extension in 2006. While taking measurements in busy intersections, the newer buses did not show changes in the air as they drove by, tracks however did show significant impact. Having say that, I don't know if the buses waiting to turn to 215th street depot are new(er) and it may required different study as these buses are technically idling as they wait to make the turn. Also, the buses create traffic as one line is occupied by the waiting buses. It is also important to point out that 215th intersection is evan more dangerous to cross because of the waiting buses, (I am crossing it every night), the cars coming from north to south cannot see pedestrian crossing until they almost reach the crosswalk (talking about the southern crosswalk on 215th street). I did voice my concern about this intersection (not specifically because of the buses waiting to turn) to CB12 several times already, apparently, no one care to care, or feel that this is important enough. I requested Red Light Cameras and wrote letters to DOT, DOS, Congressman C. Rangel, Scott Stringer, MTA and CB12. I need to note here that CB12 NEVER replied to my latter (sent on May 26th 2008 to the attention of Manny Velazques). Also, in the last meeting that was hosted at Baker Field I spoke to DOT rep. complaining about the buses double parked on 218th street every night from 9 pm for the past year or so and leave only 1 lane for traffic to go by (this street is 2 ways street!!!!!!!!!!!!) I also voiced this issue in front of CB12 months back, again, no one care about that. It may sound a little off the topic but all these "little" things creates the big picture of the big problem. Osi On Dec 5, 2008, at 12:34, Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. wrote:
Show quoted text
>> It's worth noting that Broadway carries quite a bit of through >> (non- local) truck traffic, since trucks aren't permitted on the HH >> Parkway >> or Harlem River Drive, and it offers a toll-free route from the Bronx >> into Manhattan with easy access to the west side of the island. > > Speaking of Broadway traffic, it is not often recognized that much > of the traffic is resulting from having a big bus depot and a big > Sanitation garage co-located between 215 and 219th Sts east of > Broadway. The Sanitation depot houses all the trucks from FOUR > Sanitation districts. CB12 is one district. We are very large as > it is. But we also have Bronx 7 and 8 as well as Manhattan 8. That > we have Manhattan 8 is the worst thing because that is the silk > stocking district. They are down on the upper east side! That's > seven miles away. Steve Simon told me years ago that they have been > fighting having their own garage for years and I think because they > are so well heeled they win. So Sanitation trucks trundle back and > forth on Broadway spewing huge amounts of diesel (they get 7 miles > to the gallon too so that's two gallons of fuel with every trip to > and from CB8!) and clog our streets as well. This is a waste of > city money! The two Bronx districts clog the streets of Marble Hill > and upper Inwood and pollute our air centered around the Broadway > Bridge. > > The same is true regarding that big bus depot. Though I don't know > how many bus routes are housed there, I know that many from the > Bronx are housed there. You can stand waiting for a bus south at > 225th St and when the shift changes many routes just race by. I > don't expect that anybody did a cumulative environmental impact > statement when they rammed these two facilities into Inwood. And we > just sit here like patsies and take it... I'll bet you that the CB > doesn't even realize the impacts. Imagine Broadway and the Broadway > bridge if those facilities just housed our own buses and Sanitation > trucks. There would easily be room on the roadway of Broadway and > the bridge for protected bike lanes if these facilities would be > dedicated to just our own service vehicles. > > > > > Recommended viewing for the 21st century: www.storyofstuff.com > > > Maggie Clarke, Ph.D. > www.MaggieClarkeEnvironmental.com > Environmental Scientist, Educator > mclarke@... > New York City > > -- Archive: http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228498494054 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to inwood-livable-streets-discussion@... > . Please contact inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@... > for questions.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:55:11PM -0500, Noah Osnos wrote:
Show quoted text
> I, too, have always thought that skiing was much more convenient when > leaving from Inwood. Where does everyone go?
I usually go with these folks, who organize bus trips to Vermont and the Adirondacks (both XC and downhill): http://skiclubofnewyork.org/ Unfortunately, they haven't put their 2009 schedule online yet - I'm told they will have trips to Stowe, VT on Feb 13-16 (President's Day weekend) and to Lake Placid, NY on March 6-8. The Appalachian Mountain Club has a ski section that plans group XC and downhill trips where people share transportation. You need to be an AMC member to participate - see: http://www.outdoors.org/chapters/newyork-northjersey-chapter.cfm There's also the Miramar Ski Club, which runs charter buses to their Killington chalet. They are more convenient for downhill skiing - you can do XC if you go with them but you'll have to spend extra time on the bus since they drop off and pick up the downhillers first (unless you can arrange to travel with someone who's got their own car once you're up there). http://miramar.org/ Finally, if there is any local snow I will lead trips in Van Cortlandt Park and/or South Yonkers. These outings are impromptu since snow is less and less likely in NYC as the planet warms up.
Collapse
"Dave Thom"
"Dave Thom"
Subject: Re: local skiing
2008-12-15 15:53
Ski buses are not convenient from Inwood since they cater to the downtown crowd or at best, the Upper West Side. There are many ski buses that leave from various points around Manhattan - Paragon Sports near Union Square has an extensive service. Note - Do NOT try taking the Adirondack bus from PA to Belleayre... the resort is much better and less crowded than, say, Hunter, but takes forever to get to the PA in the morning from Inwood by local A-train, the bus timing is awful, it runs through Woodstock and other pointless towns (making 49 people wait to pick up 1 more person), and you'll sit in Kingston for 20 minutes transferring drivers -- all while missing out on that morning snow. It leaves the resort too early also. Forget it. Of course by car it is very easy to ski from Inwood, since you are on I-87 heading north in 5 minutes while your friends downtown are still trying to get their rental car to the Lincoln Tunnel. In that case Belleayre, etc. are great spots to head to. (Note - this whole endeavor requires the enlightened view that cars are not inherently evil at all times, and can be used sparingly, in moderation, for certain non-commuting related activities so long as they pay their way and do not endanger pedestrians in their maneuvering out of town).