Comments on: David Yassky Supports Congestion Pricing

By: Michael Fordunski

Michael Fordunski — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:43:52 +0000

Thank you David Yassky. I'm a commuter from Queens who wants mass transit improvements, less congestion, and less pollution.
I support the Mayors plan.

By: ddartley

ddartley — Wed, 30 May 2007 15:42:30 +0000

NO to any significant discount for hybrids.

Hybrids can still kill, or at least bully, pedestrians, the real engines of the City's economy.

By: Angus Grieve-Smith

Angus Grieve-Smith — Wed, 30 May 2007 05:02:58 +0000

It makes a lot of sense, Niccolo, but then you lose the convenience of having only six entry points on the south and east sides of the zone. There's no good barrier between the more congested parts of Brooklyn and Queens and the less congested parts. There are some natural boundaries, like the Sunnyside Yards, Flushing Meadows and the cemetaries, but they don't correspond to any meaningful zone boundary, so you're forced to copy the London system fairly closely. Plus if you believe there's an edge effect (and from what I've heard about London there isn't), then expanding the zone just moves the edge effect somewhere else.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Wed, 30 May 2007 04:29:02 +0000

Since all the resonses are in the subjunctive could or should sense how about congestion pricing for the neighborhoods abutting the bridges in Brooklyn and Queens?

By: Charles Siegel

Charles Siegel — Tue, 29 May 2007 21:19:04 +0000

The talk about fuel-efficient vehicles seems to be a minor issue that he won't fight for. The major issue is: "Most important, I have insisted that our neighborhoods in northwest Brooklyn must be protected by residential parking permits." I think parking permits are a useful addition to congestion pricing: they make it less likely that people will use adjoining neighborhoods as their park-and-ride lot, and more likely that people will do all or most of their commute using transit.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:43:48 +0000

#2, agreed. Adding that in opens a whole can of worms, in my opinion.

#4, maybe a better answer would be increased emissions standards for trucks in NYC. The green taxi initiative will have phased out all non-hybrids after a few years. Higher standards for delivery trucks also makes sense.

By: Anne (www.sustainableflatbush.org)

Anne (www.sustainableflatbush.org) — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:39:42 +0000

to be truly fair, the "fuel-efficient" category should include non-hybrid models that are simply small enough to get over 35mpg. a hybrid SUV that gets 20mpg is still not truly "fuel-efficient". somehow, some way, our society needs to be weaned off of its addiction to behemoth-sized vehicles.

By: some dude

some dude — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:41:16 +0000

What's the argument against residential parking permits? As a resident local to West 86th, I'd be perfectly happy if they restricted parking from 86th up to the top of the Manhattan during the work week. Not having accessible free parking would have the added benefit of dissuading incoming drivers, regardless of congestion pricing. If they're worried about keeping out transient shoppers/visitors, perhaps non-permitted vehicles can be given a three hour window? Something not long enough for a CBD worker to exploit. Perhaps even more parking meters would help limit all-day parkers?

By: mfs

mfs — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:36:44 +0000

there should be at least a 75% discount for alternative fuel cars (and especially diesel-electric or gasoline-electric hybrids). the best part of this is that it will help clean up some of the trucks in this city.

By: d

Tue, 29 May 2007 18:50:20 +0000

There could easily be a trial period for fuel-efficient cars which gives hybrid owners two or three years of free rides. As long as people know there is an end date to such a trial, they will not be upset when the day comes for everyone to pay the charge.

By: some dude

some dude — Tue, 29 May 2007 18:44:57 +0000

I'm not sure I agree that "fuel-efficient" cars and trucks should be exempt. The point is to reduce traffic, not just reduce pollution. Let's say most new cars in ten years will qualify under his "fuel efficient" moniker...won't that put as back to square one?

By: Efficiency Nut

Efficiency Nut — Tue, 29 May 2007 18:16:42 +0000

Apparently Koppell also supports.