The fact that Brodsky’s stupid taxi fare increase is actually being discussed amazes me. Rather than reducing traffic it will increase it as the rich outer-borough residents and wealthy suburbanites will hae no dsincentiv to drive in the city.

And as a car-owning city resident I will drive everywhere as it will be cheaper to drive and pay parking garage rates than to pay round-trip taxi fares. The ones hurt will be the poor and middle-class who need to take taxis every now and then for health, convenience and other issues.

Wake up and realize that Brodsky is a city-hater who proposes stupid, idiotic proposals that hurt the average city-dweller and favor his rich Westchester constituents. He has NO business telling us how the city should be run since he is not from here.

Tell Brodsky to get lost and rally for the return of the commuter tax (is Bruno gone yet?) the imposition of CP and RPP so that his rich constituents will have top pay through their privileged noses to drive into the city.

galvo is spot on re. the horror of navigating the subway in a wheelchair. i am not mobility disabled, but have travelled to airports etc with lotsa luggage and, hell, there are so few functioning elevators in the damn system, its appalling!!! in fact the NYT did a story on the travails of one wheelchair bound traveller. sheesh, this is the 21st century. get it together MTA!!!! most, if not all, european cities’ subway systems are FAR MORE accessible.

And access-a-ride is not a suitable alternative for those with disabilities because…..?

Having misgivings about funds going where they are promised doesn’t mean you don’t want the funds at all. Like other questions on the poll, that one was terrible: [do you believe] “that congestion pricing funds will be used to improve mass transit”? What does that even mean? That 100% of the funds will be used to improve transit? 0% of the funds…? Isn’t it possible that some will and some won’t? All the question is really asking is if they’re pessimistic about NY politics, and quelle surprise 54% of the respondents said yes.

I’m just not feeling this call to inaction over doubts of complete success.

Larry, you imply that the problem with two of the lines that I mentioned would be solved with more funding (leaving out mention of the L train and its use of new technology and continual overcrowding, thus, not solving the problem that the technology was to help solve). Think this out. We will put more people on the trains prior to any improvements that are needed to carry those people and we are going to use these magical funds that are hopefully dedicated to mass transit. But last year, prior to the fare increase, the MTA had a surplus, then was in the red, then found more money but still there was an increase. The 2nd avenue line was funded and now that we are approaching the deadline for CP, we find that it is unfunded. Lots of funny numbers going on here. Do we really think that will stop once this pool of money is sitting there?

Lots of pols have recently stated their misgivings regarding a huge pool of money that isn’t 100% legally dedicated to mass transit. The majority of the public feels the same way according to today’s poll.

And why now, only weeks before the vote is Bloomberg addressing residential parking? Couldn’t this have been done sooner? And parking placards? We recently found out that there are 140,000 public parking placards out there, again, only weeks before the vote. CP is a way for Bloomberg to put his stamp on NY like the failed stadium was to be. The stadium as well as CP are flashy but don’t address real world issues. To me, his administration is manipulating information to make it seems as though CP is the only way to save mass transit. However, we all know that is not true.

The plan was to replace the signals on the Flushing Line with CBTC technology that (assuming the Flushing Extension is completed with its greater terminal capacity) would allow up to 40 trains per hour, compared with 30 now. As it is, expect growing signal failures.

The plan also was to build the Second Avenue Subway from 63rd Street to 125th Street.

I say “was” because the plan lacks $10 billion, with $4 billion borrowed and $4.5 billion dependent on CP.

I might add that the two biggest transit investments of the past two decades were in Queens — the Queens Boulevard line extension to the 63rd Street tunnel, and the current LIRR to GCT, which benefits eastern Queens.

If Queens residents want to drive, moreover, they should let other people drive, too. How about adding more lanes to the LIE from the Nassua line to the Clearview? The work is done in Nassau and Suffolk. Queens fought it and limited it to, I believe, a single HOV lane.

Also, according to Hilary, that makes things safer? I remember crime rates during the 70s and 80s on the subways that were much higher than today. Overcrowding causes delays and tighter space both increase anxiety which contribute to more problems, not less. Hilary, I think that you are recalling halcyon days of yore.

Also, during the 90s, many cities rebounded, not just NY.

(and it is estimated that the CP infrastructure will take up to 2 years to pay for itself)

Ed, I think you’re working from an earlier version of congestion pricing, the one with all the gantries and cameras. The version proposed by the Commission would only have gantries on the avenues at 60th Street, plus EZPass on the bridges.

Also, as I keep telling Lew, the number of people who drive into Manhattan isn’t really that big. It just seems like a lot because they come in big packages. If they were on the train it wouldn’t contribute that much to crowding.

I’m glad you support tolling the bridges; if you could get Eric and Marge to come out in support of that, maybe we’d get somewhere. Congestion pricing has the potential to make a lot of good changes in our neighborhood. They can be done without it, though. I’d be happy to talk with you about what they are and how we can get them.

Who knows, maybe some people will take their bikes if some the traffic is a little more tolerable. It’s not so bad! Also, tolling bridges would tighten the trains too, right? I’m with the rest of you.

Raising cab fares is tightening one spigot while leaving the other with no valve at all. The overflowing bucket is getting tired of this crap.

The burbs see congestion pricing as rich manhattanites who can afford to live in the middle of everything working to exclude the hoi polloi from the burbs so as to make their cab trips faster. (Bloomberg wants to make it possible for him to be ferried from his house on the upper east side to city hall so that he doesn’t have to take the subway anymore).

The city should be rethinking how cabs and limos work. They should eliminate many of the limos. They should require cabs to pull fully over to the curb before picking up passengers and provide taxi stops on every block on the avenues for the taxis to pull over into. (How about using the space next to the fire hydrants). Taxis should not be allowed to pick up or discharge passengers from the moving lanes. No double parking including cabs and limos should be allowed on the avenues period. That, more than anything else would improve traffic in manhattan. Right now the cross town buses are slower than walking. I would like to see that fixed.

I pay plenty of city taxes too, why can’t I have greater access to the city streets for non-automobile traffic, that’s what I want for my money.

Again, in Woodside, Astoria and Sunnyside many of us are for congestion pricing. The Commission projects that Western Queens would see as much reduction in traffic as Manhattan – almost 40% on the most clogged streets. Please get the facts before you get all ready to fight.

This plan is not about Manhattan; it’s about the city as a whole. It focuses on Manhattan because the rivers are an easy place to control cars. When you swallow an aspirin, you don’t expect it to only help your throat, right?