-
Inwood Livable Streets discussion
-
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
-
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.
-
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, 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 | e-mail: jginsbu@... | "Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
-
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.
-
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: > 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. > > > > > > >
-
-
-
the cost of infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers
from Maggie Clarke on 2008-12-05 12:13You 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 mclarke@... New York City
-
text.html (text/html) 3.6 kB
