http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/tunnels/pdfs/01_08_05_TollRatesFile.pdf

I bet that if you polled anyone involved in the trucking supply chain here in NYC and asked them how much they would pay to get their freight delivered faster and more reliably, the sum would be higher than $21 a day, which is maybe equivalent to 30 minutes of the cost of a driver's time, let alone the cost of the truck.

Taxpayers, even those paying the congestion fee, will enjoy less traffic, better air quality, less stress, and on and on. I'm chagrined that we are still talking about benefits vs. cost on this topic.

The real question is what we can do now that our elected officials let us down.

Want more????

Ed Mannix

Our addiction to oil and our growing dependence on imported fuel are dangerous security liabilities with severe economic consequences if the flow of foreign oil is disrupted. Now it’s not just environmentalists calling for massive increases in energy conservation and renewable energy – it’s the Council on Foreign Relations and the Army Corps of Engineers. A new Pentagon study warns that the military must take immediate steps toward running on alternative and renewable fuels or the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world will become "unsustainable in the long term".

We can imagine what those Pentagon analysts might tell outer-borough commuters. How would a sharp spike in oil prices affect trucks bringing groceries to supermarkets? Winter heating fuel prices? The restaurants and theaters dependent on tourists? Fire, police, ambulances, and garbage trucks? Would commuters still choose to drive into Manhattan, or would they flock to mass transit?

With the threat of price shocks and fuel shortages, efforts to shift our transit needs to less fuel-guzzling modes is as vital to our future as NYPD’s anti-terror task force. By getting more drivers out of cars and onto mass transit, congestion pricing increases our economic resiliency. Can it be reframed? Congestion pricing could be more accurately called the transit relief fund, the mass transit incentive, or the rush hour fee, according to Joe Brewer, research fellow at George Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute. It could also be called security pricing.

While we need both short-term and long-term responses, the critical starting point of all energy policy should be rapid energy conservation planning. The newly released Sierra Club NYC report, “Moving New York City toward Sustainable Energy Independence” – available at http://www.beyondoilnyc.org - urges PlaNYC and City Council to follow San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, already creating municipal plans for energy volatility. Highway speed limits, reduced public transit fees, car pooling, telecommuting, and compressed work weeks of fewer but longer days are some responses recommended by the International Energy Agency and the engineering firm Parsons Brinkerhoff.
Many of the issues raised by congestion pricing critics will enhance PlaNYC implementation as they are addressed, but opponents should consider future energy scenarios and connect the dots. With the matter reframed, perhaps they will join efforts to implement congestion pricing as a step in moving NYC toward better mass transit, and beyond oil.

Dan Miner
Sierra Club NYC Group
energy committee chair

“Moving NYC Toward Sustainable Energy Independence” has been endorsed by a number of groups, including New York Public Interest Research Group, INFORM, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, the Pace Energy Project and Sustainable South Bronx. It was cited as a Report of the Day by Gotham Gazette.

I am writing in response to your recent email message regarding the Mayor’s congestion pricing plan. I agree with you that, ideally,
congestion pricing could generate much needed revenue for improvements to and expansion of our mass transit system, and significantly reduce the amount of traffic, pollution and emissions of greenhouses gases in
New York City. Unfortunately, when I met with representatives of the
Mayor’s Office to discuss the details of the proposal, I was not
convinced that the current plan will succeed in accomplishing these
goals without creating undue hardships for many New Yorkers. I have
concerns with many aspects of the Mayor’s plan.

One clear concern with the plan is that the mass transit system is
severely inadequate to accommodate many of the New York City residents
who currently commute to Manhattan by car. In fact, the MTA’s policy of
removing token booth collectors and the excessive lag times for repairs
to broken elevators and escalators in subway stations, are just two of
the recent examples of the transit system’s failure to meet the needs of
the elderly, the disabled, and other commuters who have difficulties
navigating stairs.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SOME SMALL % OF IN-CITY CAR COMMUTERS DRIVE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT TAKE THE BUS OR TRAIN, BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT IS A VERY SMALL % OF CAR COMMUTERS. A GOOD MANY CAR COMMUTERS COULD EASILY SWITCH TO MASS TRANSIT, BUT HAVE JUST CHOSEN NOT TO FOR SOME PERCEIVED CONVENIENCE (UNFORTUNATELY, MANY AMERICANS ARE OK WITH JUST SITTING ALONE IN TRAFFIC).

Additionally, the data provided by the Mayor’s Office overwhelmingly
suggests that the majority of traffic into Manhattan is created by
commuters from outside New York City. I am convinced that the congestion
pricing plan should take this data into account by shifting a larger
portion of the burden to commuters from the northern suburbs, Long
Island and New Jersey.

YOU KNOW AS MUCH AS I DO THAT CHARGING SUBURBAN COMMUTERS MORE IS A RED HERRING TO APPEAL TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. MAKING DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN COMMUTERS IS A POLITICAL NON-STARTER THAT WOULD CAUSE POWERFUL OUT OF CITY POLITICIANS TO KILL THE PLAN.

I also questioned the Mayor’s Office about how the City would collect
the fee, including administration and infrastructure changes, and they
admitted that there is no firm plan to date. Under close scrutiny of
estimated administration costs, implementing the proposal will be
significantly more expensive and complicated than originally
anticipated. There has been no concrete explanation of the process by
which the generated revenues will be invested into the mass transit
system, or of how much money will be used to cover the administrative
costs of the program. Because a congestion pricing proposal of this
magnitude has the potential to become a bureaucratic catastrophe, the
details of administration and reinvestment must be carefully worked out
well before the plan is approved.

I THINK LONDON'S EXPERIENCE IS TOTALLY THE OPPOSITE - WHAT'S YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THIS CANNOT BE DONE W/OUT CREATING A "BUREAUCRATIC CATASTROPHE"?
Furthermore, while several large corporations are in support of the
Mayor’s plan, I have not yet heard the same positive feedback from
small, locally owned businesses – many of which are based in Brooklyn
and other boroughs but conduct transactions in Manhattan on a daily
basis. I am not convinced that these small business owners will come to
the same conclusion as larger corporations that can more easily absorb
the additional costs. For example, the current plan makes no distinction
between a delivery truck from a multimillion dollar corporation and one
from a bakery in Gowanus with fewer than a dozen employees – both would
be charged the $21 commercial fee. I believe that the Mayor’s plan must
incorporate exemptions or reduced rates, or otherwise take steps to
account for these real differences.

YES, THIS WILL INCREASE COSTS FOR SOME LOCAL BUSINESSES. HOWEVER, BECAUSE YOU ONLY PAY 1 TIME PER DAY - YOU DON'T PAY AGAIN IF YOU LEAVE AND RETURN, THE EXTRA COST WOULD BE MINIMAL. THIS COST WILL BE OFFSET FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVERS IS THE TOLLS REDUCED TRAFFIC AND MADE THEIR TRIPS TO MANHATTAN FASTER AND MORE EFFICIENT. FOR COMMERCIAL DELIVERY DRIVERS, TIME SITTING IN TRAFFIC AND WASTING GAS IS MONEY DOWN THE TUBES.

I certainly agree we must take action to improve the air quality and
traffic problems in our Borough and City, but for congestion pricing to
work for New York, it will have to work for all New Yorkers. The Mayor’s
Office agreed to supply me with additional information on the proposed
congestion pricing plan, and I hope changes to the plan will be
considered to address some of my reservations. While congestion pricing
may prove to be the best idea, in its present form, I have many
questions and concerns about the Mayor’s proposal.

I AGREE THE PLAN IS NOT PERFECT AND THAT ADJUSTMENTS NEED TO BE MADE. BUT I WISH YOUR TONE WAS MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PREMISE ("MEND IT DONT END IT"). AND, AS i SAID, I DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF SOME OF YOUR CRITICISMS.

THANK YOU.

service within brooklyn seems a lot better than in the past; BUT, as the only train that goes from brooklyn to queens directly, it is sadly lacking on the queens end, especially on the weekends. it is ridiculous to be required to go to manhattan to get from downtown brooklyn to downtown queens (let alone beyond) but every weekend for what must be years the G has been terminating at court square, one stop from the huge transit hub at queens plaza. VERY frustrating for all the queens folks i know.

When: Sunday June 3rd, Registration 8 am – Rain or Shine
Where: Start/ Finish Grand Army Plaza, Prospect Park
What: Bicycle tour featuring historic Brooklyn neighborhoods, parks and waterfronts.
Who: cyclists of all ages and skill levels
Info: http://www.tourdebrooklyn.org, call 212-629-8080
Cost: Free but on-line registration required

Bike Brooklyn’s Best 3rd Annual Tour de Brooklyn

This year’s tour gets underway at Grand Army Plaza, a National Historic Landmark at Prospect Park. This year’s 18 mile tour will feature Brooklyn’s southern neighborhoods along the waterfront like Sunset, Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights and Bensonhurst and loops towards the heart of Brooklyn, Kensington and Prospect Park South to end at the Carousel.

If this is your first time to Brooklyn by bike don’t worry you can join our feeder ride, leaving from Cadman Plaza near Brooklyn Bridge. Ride will depart promptly at 7:45 am, arriving at Prospect Park 8:05 am. Safety Marshals will be provided to guide you to the GAP.

This is a family friendly ride at a leisurely pace, escorted by the police and safety marshals. There will be one rest stop along the way where you can take a break, stretch your legs and snack on some food.

Bicycling in New York City has grown by leaps and bounds, there are over 120,000 daily cyclists today, up just 75,000 1992. There are over 36,000 daily cyclists in Brooklyn alone, plus thousands more who bike for fun on the weekends. Transportation Alternatives has been instrumental in winning new bike lanes, improved bridge access, and safe parking for NYC cyclists.

Bicycling in New York City has grown by leaps and bounds, there are over 120,000 daily cyclists today, up just 75,000 1992. There are over 36,000 daily cyclists in Brooklyn alone, plus thousands more who bike for fun on the weekends. Transportation Alternatives has been instrumental in winning new bike lanes, improved bridge access, and safe parking for NYC cyclists.

Transportation Alternatives – 127 W. 26th Street, New York, NY 10001 – (212) 629-8080

But Brooklyn Democrats do love their hacks.

The G has come a long way from when I started riding it to do lap swims at Metropolitan Pool from Carroll Street. Back then you had to wait forever. Not so bad now.

Well and good. KensingtonBrooklyn blogged some rumblings about that recently.

But (1) I understand that's temporary and (2) the G is the Pauly Shore of subways.