Comments on: Congestion Pricing Gets a Warm Reception in Manhattan

By: paul

paul — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:17:02 +0000

As a swede living in Stockholm I have found the Stockholm Congestion charging has been very easy to use and worth the investment costs to have less traffic during the rush hours and making it easier and cheaper to go by taxi between the suburbs and the inner city as the travel time has gone down considerable. People tend only to use the car when they really need it. So for both the best of hour planet and for our own health reducing the unnecessary travels are a great plus.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:15:09 +0000

Oh yeah, and the shocking once every six weeks thing. There are five work days in a week x 6 = 30 days. Thats 3% crowding disaster. Have you seen my block twice a week when the Gowanus backs up and people run for the free bridge in Brooklyn? Thats 40% of the time. The on-time performance of the roadways always gets a free ride from the pro-congestion crowd. Even out by you in God’s Country Queens the roads regularly come to a complete standstill. As you would expect given that they are free.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:08:44 +0000

I just found you a surprisingly poor speaker especially considering your spokesman role. The arguments you raised were the same old same old though that did not distinguish your performance from the others except Weiner. Anthony is raising the level of his game.

You raised the chicken and egg thing as did many of the speakers which you apparently find persuasive. My belief is that we will never get to service expansion if we wait to establish new dedicated funding streams until after the service is in place. The political process is simply not capable of yielding sufficient revenues over a long enough period of time to create the capital flows needed for system expansion of that magnitude. The chicken and egg argument, especially with regard to the 2nd Ave Subway is ridiculous on its face. If you were talking about a bus route, even a BRT route you might have an argument. The system is simply not going to expand until more permanent dedicated moneys are committed to it.

That said, I thought the anti-crowd, though clearly no where near a majority, won the night. This was Manhattan and it should have been a blow out, it wasn’t. I’m looking forward to your performance at the Queens and Brooklyn events. But you should dust up the schtick a little or just spotlight Weiner more.

By: Corey Bearak

Corey Bearak — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:24:18 +0000

Niccolo,
Please explained what you found “horrible.” I tend to be my own worst critic and I rather enjoyed my presentation; I was also very pleased at the pleasant reception my testimony received from those in attendance. Perhaps you just did not like the substance and that fact that the Manhattanites were so warm to a boy from Queens. NYC-TV taped it so maybe someone can YouTube my presentation and we have a nice back and forth.

As to the report, the auditorium was not packed; maybe 75-80%; a lot of interior empty seats.
Also while 80 speakers signed up, only 54 spoke, several of them electeds not on the witness list.

And it was not just Grand Central that was gridlocked. Seven trains passed before I could board a #6 at 33rd Street. I cannot recall a more crowded subway experience. Riders at that stop I queried said the condition happens once every six weeks. So a likely 10 minute ride took 75 minutes including the wait. Perhaps the congestion problem on and in the subways deserve more immediate attention.

By: Gerg

Gerg — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:41:02 +0000

It’s not so nice to embarrass the poor guy in the red t-shirt by so prominently displaying his grammar error on a public web site.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:04:48 +0000

Manhattan was the location where the support was supposed to be strongest. The Manhattan politicos and activists for the most part are holding back their support pending resolution of their issues. That would make them not a lot different than Weiner or anyone else. Lots of citizens spoke in support but that support was tepid compared to the impassioned Manhattan opponents. One woman in thousand dollar shoes said that Congestion Pricing was going to force her to move to the suburbs.

The Queens guy Corey Bearak (sp?) was horrible, (he is a spokesman?) but this was an away game for him and he only needed to lose by less than a goal, a draw would have been a win for him. The meetings upcoming in Brooklyn and Queens will probably bring out more of the axe murderers so there should probably be some focus on bringing out some troops to yell and scream alternately support and condemnation.

And, the mental illness factor will probably be greater in Brooklyn and Queens.

By: JF

JF — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:34:12 +0000

Thanks, Megan. From the Sun article, you’d think that there were only complaints and concerns. It’s good to get reporting that shows how much support there is for this.

By: momos

momos — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:32:42 +0000

Go Grattan! New York needs some adopted Londoners to help us get with the program.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:24:39 +0000

And, ironically, the Republicans and the State Senate are on the other side. If I can’t stand either, does that make me bi-partisan?

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:23:48 +0000

So the borough that doesn’t want too many of other people’s cars, Manhattan, also would rather have other people swallow its garbage trucks rather than have a transfer station.

The boroughs could compromise the good way or the bad way. But I’m afraid Silver is on the wrong side of each issue, doing damage in a non-parochial way.