I know you have fought the dollar vans publicly and clearly lost, I was just rubbing your face in it. They continue to run through your turf sucking revenue from the MTA.

As far as funding mass transit capital goes I don’t care where you get the money. Right now a lot of the capital is being funded out of the farebox. I don’t care whether you call it a tax or a toll or a fare. But congestion pricing , while there clearly are administrative costs associated with it, is the only way to fund mass transit capital while simultaneously decongesting the streets.

I would prefer you feel annoyed rather than flattered. It would be a bigger favor to New York politics if you put your efforts to ending term limits.

It is clear that CP will not raise real revenue. We will be charging people for the privilege of paying for the collection of the tax. The amount that CP will cost to collect percentage wise is unheard of. It is also extraordinarily speculative.

I agree with you there, and I personally prefer Konheim and Ketcham’s alternative plan:

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2007/9/local/whiter-congestion-pricing

(I’m not sure what you’ll think of the rest of the article.)

The K&K plan would raise real revenue with relatively low overhead while discouraging car trips to the CBD. It wouldn’t be incompatible with your plan, as long as you’re willing to put tolls on the “free” bridges. It’s favored by many here, although it’s considered a long shot.

That said, I still think the Mayor’s plan is better than no congestion pricing at all. The main value of congestion pricing to me will be to get people to take the bus or train instead of driving through my neighborhood. I’m on record as saying that the congestion charge would be worth it if the money all gets spent on hookers and blow. I still think so, although it’s becoming more and more apparent how much that money is needed just to pay down the MTA debt.

I don’t believe that cars are evil. They can be a lot of fun – when there’s nobody else around. I just can’t get past the killing-people aspect of them, though. Interestingly, I meet a surprising number of people who feel the same way but aren’t activists or Streetsblog posters or anything like that. They just choose not to drive, or else hate every minute they spend behind the wheel.

Sure, let’s use all forms of transportation. I’m willing to put up with cars in the city, but I don’t want to subsidize them with my tax dollars or give them any priority over me or the buses that I ride. That means no expensive tunnels for them, among other things.

Have a good trip; looking forward to your response.

My plan, which IS more equitable, would raise over a billion dollars in its first year and grow to 2 billion a year over a dozen years. And it will cost almost nothing to collect. THAT will be an effective infusion of money for transportation.

As to lag time, I remind you that every journey begins with a first step. The Trans-Narrows Tunnel was begun in 1923. If only they hadn’t stopped. ST would have a s subway. Do we want to be having this conversation just that way again in 25 years?

Not to mention that PlanYC is about a vision for NYC in 2030, no?

Nicolo, I am not sure whether to be flattered or annoyed. I doubt that Clarence Norman would call me an old school Clubhouse pol. I have been pretty damn independent in my life. I think there is a Speaker of the Assembly lying in political oblivion because of an insurgency that I was a key player in, but that may just make me old. And you have me at an advantage as I don’t know who you are.

If you take my view that cars are not evil, my view is not cynical. I believe that our city must use all forms of transportation to survive and flourish. Your fave may not be your naighbor’s fave. But we need both of them. We can do better with all of them. (Need we discuss the boondoggle that is Robo train?)

As to Flatbush Avenue and Avenue U, in my first year in office I compelled DOT to do a study of this non-CBD congestion zone. NYPD refused to implement their recommendation. I have battled the illegal dollar vans. We have made a great deal of progress on that one.

However, my innovative solution was to allow all buses to enter the parking garage of Kings Plaza. Get them off the streets, give their passengers the advantage of getting on and off indoors. Let them go where dollar vans could not. Kings Plaza would have been forced to give up some parking spaces, but it would have been worth it.

This would ahve required reconstruction of the entrances and exits to the Parking lot and some work on the lower level parking plaza. Kings Plaza was not interested. They don’t care. Suffice it to say that Vornado Realty, the KP operator and owner and I are on less than good terms. Perhaps it was my returning the $1,000 campaign contribution that they tried to gie me when I first ran for the Council that gave them the clue that I don’t care for their bad neighbor policies.

FOR THE RECORD, I will be out of town for a few days and probably not available to the internet. I am not “retreating” from this dialogue, but if I am unavailable to reply, please understnd.

I will be back.

Lew from Brooklyn

Tolling the Gowanus and transferring that money to tunneling both the Gowanus and your pie in the sky SIR tunnel, now that would be policy. Policy that incidentally would result in cleaner air in Brooklyn.

Meanwhile, why can’t you do something about that traffic sewer out on Flatbush and U? All you do is add lanes and by God all we get is more traffic, what a shock. I guess you need the space for all the Dollar Vans.

I just don’t understand the concept of taxing payroll- something we want to increase in New York City- and not excess traffic- something we want to decrease.

Adding to the cost of any good will- at some point- decrease the attractiveness of it. Lets tax bad things before taxing good things.

I understand you want this to be as equitable as possible. But people work around these added costs: they come into work a little earlier; they plan trips for the weekend; they take transit; they work from home.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, I am troubled by the incredible lag time for the projects you propose. I also support a Gowanus Expressway tunnel and a Cross Harbor Tunnel but can we really afford to wait?

As for the Trans-Narrow-Tunnel that Lew (Fidler) from Brooklyn is proposing – it is actually a subway tunnel that would link the Bay Ridge line with the SIRT (this misunderstanding has come up on several threads here).

Whether building such a tunnel is the best use of $4 billion is a good question, but I would guess that the tunnel would lead to a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.

It is good to have your answer that the tunnel would cost $4 billion.

Could we have your answer to a more important question: how many tons of greenhouse gas emissions would the tunnel generate each year?

It is good to have your answer that the tunnel would cost $4 billion.

Could we have your answer to a more important question: how many tons of greenhouse gas emissions would the tunnel generate each year?

It is good to have your answer that the tunnel would cost $4 billion.

Could we have your answer to a more important question: how many tons of greenhouse gas emissions would the tunnel generate each year?

And how many tons of greenhouse gas emissions could we eliminate by spending that $4 billion on public transportation instead of on promoting automobile use?

It appears that Staten Island has some real opportunities to turn their sprawl problems around. The fact that they have intact railroad rights-of-way in such a densely populated area is a huge advantage, and it means they could develop a light-rail system without the huge costs of land acquisition and clearance. They could then concentrate future developement around rail stations.

I agree with the general idea, Eric, but I have no idea why everyone keeps talking about “light rail” for the North Shore. You only need light rail if you have a significant amount of street-running, as in Jersey City. Otherwise, “heavy rail,” like the current SIRT, is preferable.

As you say, the right-of-way is completely intact, and so is the connection with the mainland network. Why build a two-car line that only goes to other parts of Staten Island, when you could have a real commuter line that connects to PATH and NJ Transit trains in Newark?

Also, interesting note: TSTC’s survey of New Yorkers on congestion pricing in May 2006 actually found stronger support from Ststen Islanders than from residents of any other borough. (58% percent of Staten Islanders thought pricing was a good idea).

I took the bus home. No one else from the hearing joined me. We’ve obviously got a lot of work to do on Staten Island.

I guess we’ve got less work to do in Queens. I was pleased to ride home from the hearing on the subway with a neighbor of mine who’d gone to observe. We went part of the way with another livable-streets advocate from Middle Village, and I saw a guy in the Jamaica subway station who I recognized from the hearing.

Nicolo, your sarcasm aside, it would likely cost about $4 billion dollars. Of course, you could net that from the revenue of people who might not use it and not be taxing the VNB etc. But the one third of one percent Regional Payroll Tax would more than pay for it during the life of the PlanYC period as that tax would gerneate over a billion dollars a year, over $2 billion based on natural growth after about 12 years.

As to the comment about the Ferry being free, far be it for this Brooklyner, an outworlder on SI, to have to defend SIers. The Ferry is only free for people who live right near it and work in downtown. Otherwise, as Sen. Savino said, it is at best an extension of the subway fare from South Ferry to midtown where you might actually work. Worse, if you have to drive to the Ferry and park in mass transit screwed SI, there is a six dollar fee on top of that. So to call the Ferry free is a bit unfair.

My account does not say that any elected official voiced his or her support for Congestion Pricing per se. What it says is that all politicians present stated their willingness, despite their skepticism and despite the countless promises broken in the past, to at least consider some sort of congestion pricing scheme if it were tied to tangible improvements in Staten Island’s transportation system.

For example:

In the first sentence of his testimony, Councilman Michael McMahon stated that he had not made up his mind about Congestion Pricing. He then went on to say, “I’ve come here tonight with a few recommendations for major capital transportation projects that could make this plan a little easier to swallow.”

Senator Diane Savino, as Lew from Brooklyn states, was extremely negative about the proposal (in my account, I described her comments, and McMahon’s, as ‘scathing’). But after her barrage of negative comments, Savino’s told the Commission to: “give [Staten Islanders] some improvements, then they’ll back Congestion Pricing.”

Most of the tangible improvements referred to by various speakers were part of the list presented in the testimony of Patrick Hyland, who spoke for the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce. Those tangible improvements were enumerated in the account on my blog.

The concluding two sentences of my account summed up the overall point of the story, which was that despite their negative comments, “The (very) conditional willingness of many Staten Islanders to at least consider some sort of pricing scheme to reduce traffic and improve local mass transit services was encouraging.”

I stand by what I wrote.