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-----
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. 
 

Brad,

I do not equate, and have never equated, cycling with driving. I thank 
Daniel for his educational discourse, but I'm already well aware of the 
health benefits, societal benefits, and ecological benefits of 
cycling... I'm a long-standing member of TA, a staunch supporter of 
improved bike trails and segregated bike lanes, better enforcement and 
traffic-calming measures that make sense, and sold my own car awhile 
ago because mass transit is preferable in far too many ways. However, 
I'm not a purist; a mother with three small children going from WaHI to 
Target to pick up cheaper toilet paper, diapers and clothing can't 
always pile them all on the back of a bike, nor should she have to 
struggle with strollers, packages, and kids on a bus or down subway 
stairs. Taxis aren't for everyone; weekends in WaHI are dreadful for 
downtown shopping; many buses (the M4 comes to mind as an example I'm 
all too familiar with) don't keep regular schedules; and not all of us 
can walk a mile or two (or even half a mile) at a clip.

Since we're due for a new census, the data you cite must be years old. 
Let's see what the new Census tells us, eh? I know dozens of people who 
drive who would not fit that profile, for sure, as well as many who do. 
I'm very aware that WaHI has a terrible parking problem, which will be 
exacerbated with the closing of 200 spots at the Port Authority 
terminal soon. I'm also aware that truck traffic on 181 and Fort 
Washington toward the GWB (as an example) is coming from somewhere that 
is undoubtedly NOT local but still using city streets, and that the 
congestion on Dyckman, Broadway, 181st Street and others is awful -- 
and am still looking for an update on the traffic study for 181 which 
was supposed to have been supplied by now.

As for "going a few blocks," I meant only that the Broadway Bridge 
connects Manhattan's Marble Hill to the rest of Manhattan... it is a 
local street, with local traffic... not the same as coming into 
Manhattan from Queens or Brooklyn, New Jersey or Connecticut, or even 
Riverdale. It's the very same Borough.

By the way, as a member of the T&T Committee, I must consider both the 
driving and nondriving public's good... including the "hit" of new 
tolls on drivers who have little recourse because of circumstances. 
Before giving my personal approval (not that anyone really cares about 
it) to new tolls, I'd like to see much more transparency in the MTA and 
PA budgets to see just where all that money is going NOW.

Wouldn't you?

Respectfully,

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: Brad Aaron <brad@...>
To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 7:04 pm
Subject: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Re: MTA Plan - Broadway 
Bridge Toll






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:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Archive: 
http://www.livablestreets.com/projects/inwood-livable-streets/lists/inwood-livable-streets-discussion/archive/2008/12/1228435449408
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to 
inwood-livable-streets-discussion@....
Please contact 
inwood-livable-streets-discussion-manager@...
for questions.