These people mostly take the FDR and don't even use local streets. Most are smart enough to make their trip during off-hours to avoid traffic so they are not contributing that much or at all to congestion. That's why they would have been exempted from congestion pricing. So why punish them even at 1 AM?

It's not about being smart. Most people don't have a choice as to when to drive. What I'm talking about here are those New Yorkers who go away for the weekend- the ones who cause traffic in Manhattan on Friday nights, Saturday mornings, and Sunday nights that's sometimes worse than traffic on weekdays. They go when they have to go. And they don't just stay on the FDR; some people take the Williamsburg Bridge to the Holland Tunnel, for example, as one free route from Brooklyn to New Jersey. This fouls up all of Canal Street.

It's true that this wouldn't fall under congestion pricing unless the program is extended to treat all congestion, not just that which happens on work days.

Or, it's a rally for bridge tolls or the Kheel Plan 2, maybe you should publicize _that_ on SB.

IN ORDER TO PROTEST:
SERVICE CUTS
FARE HIKES
LAYOFFS

You shouldn't build park and rides if the line is already operating at capacity. Of course, the ideal solution is to have properly planned communities where you won't need park and ride in the first place. Barring that scenario, I think it makes sense to have them on an underutilized line if it keeps people from taking their car all the way into the city center.

Perhaps other options should have been investigated like a Utica Avenue line that would have connected with the Bay Ridge LIRR line and then again (if possible) with the el on McDonald, since the Rutgers Street tunnel was only at 50% capacity. That would still be possible if it makes sense engineering-wise and the money and will is available.

That's one way. Another plan was to run it through the South Fourth Street tunnel.

Incidentally, park-and-rides are not the answer.

So maybe he hotel tax is not the answer. I was misinformed. I didn't realize that the City tax was only a small portion of the entire tax. I guess what I read didn't tell the whole story.

Ian Turner:

I used to get on at Utica Avenue and Eastern Parkway on a daily basis from 1967 to 1977. During rush hours there was a 50% chance that you would not get a seat at the first stop on the express on the first train that arrived. Sometimes you couldn't even get in the first train at all if you were willing to stand. There are not too many other places that crowded. Half the people traveling past that point came from the New Lots Line. The other half boarded at Utica Acenue. About 80% of them came from the northbound Utica Avenue bus where the subway would have gone. All those people would have been on the extension. A significant number of new riders would have been shifted from the Nostrand Line (if that line had not been completed at the same time), those taking the Church Avenue and Avenue H(B6) buses to Nostrand Avenue from the east. People riding the Remsen Avenue bus would have boarded at a point on the extension rather than at Eastern Parkway because there probably would have been some bus reroutings to allow this. Also some Brighton Line riders currently on the Avenue U bus would have shifted to Utica Avenue. My guess is that all the seats during rush hours would have been taken after the first one or two stops. Even if the extension were not that crowded, it would get intolerably crowded along Eastern Parkway perhaps shifting some of those riders to other lines. For that reason, there were those who didn't even think it was a good idea to build that extension in the first place since the line was at capacity already and you couldn't add any more trains. Building both the Nostrand and Utica would have eased the crowding on Utica a little.

Perhaps other options should have been investigated like a Utica Avenue line that would have connected with the Bay Ridge LIRR line and then again (if possible) with the el on McDonald, since the Rutgers Street tunnel was only at 50% capacity. That would still be possible if it makes sense engineering-wise and the money and will is available.

Coincidentally, I just found the study a few days ago that stated the line would have been overcrowded on Day 1 and could provide you with the actual quote if you want.

To put it differently, where do the trips that would "overcrowd" the new subway line come from?

I must say I don't agree about raising the hotel tax. If anything, it should be lowered. The existing tax is 13.5 percent plus the city/state 8.25 percent sales tax. This is already the straw that breaks the camel's back, and if it's increased, it'll break even more backs, denying the city even more tourism revenue. Even as things stand now, visiting the city is something only the relatively affluent (or those who have relatives here) can afford. Are we now going to deny some of them, leaving only the super-rich?

When I book a hotel in Europe (which I do once a year) I never pay more than $180 all inclusive and the average is more like $140. We're talking good city-center hotels and sometimes even 1BR suites. New York's inflated hotel rates effectively prevent tremendous numbers of people from visiting New York -- why should they, when they can go to London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Amsterdam, Venice, Madrid, Munich, Brussels, Vienna, etc. for half the hotel cost? Forget about rising airfares, hotels are always the biggest component of any vacation that doesn't involve borrowed housing.

The city needs to cut hotel taxes to the bone and find ways (perhaps further tax breaks) to encourage hotels to reduce their rates -- not to give money away to out-of-towners, but to obtain the economic jolt local restaurants and other businesses would get from increased tourism. With the financial industry shrinking, tourism is the ace up our sleeve. We're going to need to play that card soon.

Please, repeat this one far and wide. Put it on a tee shirt! Berra may want a cut, however.

Regarding Lew Fidler's district, I thought I answered that already. But I'll repeat myself. It wouldn't matter if the Utica Avenue Subway was built (and it would have gone right through Lew Fidler's District). People still wouldn't give up their cars to ride it because it would be too overcrowded. Even if they would use it, it still wouldn't satisfy all of their travel needs. The people who presently ride the bus would save time by taking the train but that's it.

Don't get your point about them spending money to ensure people can drive because they didn't build a subway. How does that apply moreso to Lew Fidler's district than to anywhere else? If the subway money was spent on roads instead, and you haven't even proved that it was, it was spent all over, not only in that part of Brooklyn.

My bad. I should have said Port Authority instead of MTA. So they're not guilty on this one. It nevertheless still was a boondoggle. Funny how before AirTrain, the PA was highly regarded as doing everything right. There were always comparisons made that the MTA should be more like the PA.

Mark Walker:

Thanks for the compliment.

I really wasn't talking about out-of-towners, unless you consider anyone not from Manhattan to be one. I meant the people from the five boroughs. And I sympathize with having to put up with the ill-effects of traffic. But you're mainly talking about the Jersey crowd, not those who use the free East River bridges.

I realize that I'm probably the only one here against the tolls but I just thought of another reason. There are other and fairer ways to raise the money that no one has mentioned. I just read that the Mayor wants to raise the hotel tax by less than one percent. Even with the proposed increase it will still be less than 5%. Why can't it be raised to 10 or 15% with the money going to the MTA? The mayor would probably say that he doesn't want to hurt tourism. But someone who is already paying 300 or 400 a night can certainly afford to pay a little more and will still visit the City. Isn't it fairer to tax someone who only has to pay it for a week and who is benefiting from mass transit, than someone who is not directly benefiting and must continually pay for it? I don't know how much money this would raise, but it would be significant. When I spent a night at a hotel in Connecticut ten years ago, I was charged a 100% hotel tax. ($50 for the room and $50 for tax.) I don't think 10% would be unreasonable.

Also, I remember reading last year that the City Council proposed to raise some type of corporate tax by .1% that would have raised millions but it was opposed by Mayor Bloomberg. I don't feel that all the possibilities have been properly investigated.

I can speak with some authority on this because I live next to the Henry Hudson Parkway on the Upper West Side. I do suffer from the constant noise. It's not as bad as living on Broadway (my previous apartment) but it never goes away. I hear it at four in the morning. And I understand carbon monoxide is toxic. Less traffic on the highway would make my life pleasanter and probably longer.

Incidentally, I enjoy reading your comments, and they are often interesting.

I don't get your point about the 27% in Lew Fidler's district. Of course they're inconvenienced. Are you saying that everyone else also should be inconvenienced? Are you saying that if no one owned a car, the City would be forced to build a subway line there?

I'm saying that if the people who "matter" (to the politicians) in Lew's district rode the bus, there would be a subway line there by now. There's been a lot of money spent ensuring that people from that district can drive where they want to go, enough to pay for a subway or at least a light rail line.

They spent I think 3 billion dollars on Airtrain and it's really useful only for Long Islanders.

Yeah, the MTA really fucked up on that Airtrain, didn't they? Except it was the Port Authority.

I'm glad someone else is reading this. I was starting to get the impression that Cap'n Transit and I were the only ones in the room.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by the "MTA's ability to ever expand."

I don't really want to be too critical of the Ravitch report because I haven't read all of it yet. It may have some good points, but I don't think East River tolls is one of them. I don't think these tolls alone would cause people to move out on masse, but for some it may be the straw that breaks the camel's back; in other words people who have been contemplating moving for a while. I said they will move out on masse if over time we keep adding disincentives without giving them positive mass transit alternatives.

And I am skeptical of the MTA being able to get the job done. They have been promising bus locator / GPS systems for 30 years to give the local bus system some semblance or reliability and there is still nothing on the horizon. I don't even want to know how much they've spent on it thus far.

When I have to walk a mile home two days in a row because the bus is running every 30 minutes when they are scheduled at every 8 or 10 minutes, something is very wrong. That's why on cold days like today, I take my car so I don't have to freeze waiting for a bus. I'm afraid that Bus Rapid Transit will be their next boondoggle. They spent I think 3 billion dollars on Airtrain and it's really useful only for Long Islanders. They could have used the existing Rockaway ROW probably for less money and give a direct ride to Manhattan but they didn't want to take on the politically powerful Rego Park residents who didn't want a train in their backyard because of the noise. Today there are building techniques that would have eliminated most of that noise. It would have taken some political work to get it accomplished, but the MTA as usual wants to do what is easiest for them.

In your "upstate" example you give, I don't see how that makes Manhattan residents "suffer." These people mostly take the FDR and don't even use local streets. Most are smart enough to make their trip during off-hours to avoid traffic so they are not contributing that much or at all to congestion. That's why they would have been exempted from congestion pricing. So why punish them even at 1 AM? Yes, they do have the alternative routes you mention, but if those were better alternatives in terms of time, they would be taking them already.

It looks like you've given up on the MTA's ability to ever expand, or to even provide quality service. Its problems are real, but we can't change the MTA and leadership and Albany all at once. Change has to start somewhere. Implementing the recommendations in the Ravitch report will be a signal that road use is going to be more fairly redistributed to all users, rather than prioritizing cars. And over time, people will adjust and public transit will improve. With new tolls, I don't see people moving out of no-transit neighborhoods en masse, simply because such neighborhoods tend to have many owners and few renters, often with families and steady jobs. (Which is why they picked such neighborhoods in the first place).

Another way to look at it is from the point of fairness. For example, there are three ways to get from Brooklyn to upstate New York: through Staten Island/New Jersey (tolls), through Queens and the Bronx (tolls), or through Manhattan (free). Why should Manhattan residents suffer disproportionally because Brooklyn drivers want to avoid paying tolls? There are many other examples like that.

I don't get your point about the 27% in Lew Fidler's district. Of course they're inconvenienced. Are you saying that everyone else also should be inconvenienced? Are you saying that if no one owned a car, the City would be forced to build a subway line there? When the Utica Avenue Line was proposed in 1968, studies showed that it would already be overcrowded on its first day given the existing development. Do you think that someone with a car would have switched to the train if it were built?

You say the streets shouldn't be designed for cars. Would it be less congested if all the streets in the city were designed for horse and buggy like they are in the older neighborhoods?

You say car-free living is inconvenient in Waterside. I don't think it is when you can afford to take a cab anywhere. Do you think the people living there rely that much on mass transit?

Your paragraph that begins "I've heard all kinds of stories... is 100% correct. But what's your point? Sounds like you're suggesting that cars should be outlawed so they would be forced to live near where they work. If so, then what about the kids? They would still have to find a way to get them to the school of their choice. Or should we not allow that either? Tell them they have to put their children in a school near where they work even if there are no good schools in that neighborhood? I thought this country was founded on freedom of choice and you're not giving them any. I can already see your response. "They're not giving me the freedom of choice to breathe fresh air." Sorry, I don't buy it.

Similarly, you're not making any point commenting on my friend with the dying wife. Of course I see the possibility that perhaps he wouldn't be able to drive and that would be tragic. He would not be able to see his wife then and would have to spend hours instead talking to her on the phone instead of seeing her. That would even be more tragic. But how does that support the case for bridge tolls? It doesn't. You're trying to grasp at straws.

Your last paragraph is partially correct. Some of those people did fight against transit. Yet still others were for it. So what? What does that prove? Also, I don't get the "taxpayer subsidized" bit. Transit doesn't exactly pay for itself. It is also subsidized by taxpayers through utility bills, non-users (those who pay bridge tolls), federal, state and City subsidies, etc. If people weren't allowed to own or use cars, or if disincentives are increased without providing alternatives, those people would move to other parts of the country rather than being inconvenienced. Is that what you want?

You can't force them to ride on a mass transit system that doesn't even have the capacity to handle them. Mass transit ridership is at a 40-year high, and the MTA threatens to reduce service. Does that make sense? They always have money to give raises to high paid executives, but not enough to provide more service. I worked for them for 25 years, and whenever they added new upper level positions, it was never to run the system better, but to find a way to reward someone they wanted to reward. That's why we need more accountability there, not less. The Ravitch plan gives the MTA the right to increase tolls and the mass transit fare every two years without public hearings. Sorry but I don't agree.

You're just not making a convincing case.

How is my comment not respectful? Do you still feel that those living in outlying areas do not require an automobile?

My point is that some of us are quite familiar with these areas. Maybe not as familiar as you are, but familiar enough, and we have not come to the same conclusions as you.

The problem is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be, with a line (Prospect Park? Kings Highway? the Cross Island Parkway?) dividing the car-required territory from the car-optional territory. For example, 27% of households in Lew Fidler's district do not own a single car. I'm sure they're inconvenienced in myriad ways by streets designed for cars, but clearly cars are not necessary for their existence. There are similar enclaves all over the city where it's very easy to live without a car, and enclaves even in Manhattan (say, Waterside) where car-free living is inconvenient at best.

I've heard all kinds of stories about people who "need" their cars to drop their kids off at school in one place and go to work in another, or who live in Canarsie and work in Maplewood, you name it. What's missing from those stories is the fact that they bought the house in Canarsie or signed their kid up for school on the Upper West Side or took that job in Maplewood. What if they hadn't had a car? Well, they would have found another job or moved to East Orange or found a more convenient school for the kids.

What if your friend with the dying wife hadn't been able to afford a car, or had been legally blind and unable to drive? We would have said that it was a tragic situation, but there was nothing to be done about it. These things happen all the time, and yet somehow the opponents of bridge tolls or congestion pricing seem unable to imagine that such things could be a reasonable alternative.

Your argument also ignores the fact that some of these people are the ones who have been responsible in the past for the very lack of transit that they claim forces them to drive. They, or their parents, have blocked transit expansions into their neighborhoods, lobbied against funding for transit, and demanded large amounts of parking near every home, shop and workplace. They moved to Marine Park or Fresh Meadows for the taxpayer-subsidized, transit-free existence that they now claim chains them to their cars. And we, who chose a more efficient, environmentally friendly lifestyle are expected to continue to subsidize them, year after year?