As Espaillat's constituent, and one who relies on mass transit for my livelihood, I feel abandoned and betrayed. Truly, if the transit-riding majority can't get any help from our elected officials, whom can we turn to?

Noting again that tollbooths would not be used, I would think it would divert a lot of traffic OUT of Inwood, as people from Westchester and the Bronx would not be "bridge shopping" to avoid tolls when they drive into
Manhattan. Can you imagine what this would do to the quality of life here?

Here's what I envision: less traffic on the streets, less crime in Inwood since people would know their license plates are being photographed on the bridges, less or no motorcycle racing because of the video tolling. I wonder what the NYPD thinks about video tolling...I imagine they would support it for law enforcement reasons.

I would think that people who are serious about playing baseball in Inwood Hill Park wouldn't mind the occasional weekend toll, which is a good thing.

Any other up-sides to tolling the bridges that I'm missing?

I've taken my fair share of economics classes, thank you very much. Did you have a point, or should I interpret your last comment to mean you've run out of rhetorical ammunition?

--------------------

In a previous post, one commenter wrote "now is not the time to be philosophical. we need pragmatic solutions".

In the interest of being pragmatic, I therefore wrote the following to Espaillat's office:

---------------

Dear Assemblyman Espaillat,

I have read that your office feels that Inwood residents would prefer to pay higher subway fares with reduced service rather than see the Broadway Bridge tolled. I am an Inwood resident and certainly do not feel that way; in fact, I feel you are misrepresenting the view of the silent majority of residents who take the subway or bus to work every day. I happen to own a car also, but will pay far more out-of-pocket for more expensive monthly Metrocards for my family than for the occasional auto trip over a tolled bridge.

Obviously the bridge is in the wrong location to be tolled since it is not near the Central Business District and joins two similar communities that rely on each other. Obviously it is not fair to lump the Inwood bridges in with the Queensboro or Brooklyn Bridges, major downtown crossings that should definitely be tolled. Obviously it would be better to have true congestion pricing with a toll line at 60th St or 96th St rather than 220th St. But, if tolling all bridges is the only option available then it should be pursued.

What your office should be working on, instead of pandering to car services and Westchester commuters, is suggesting that the bridge be tolled but that a 90% discount be given to Inwood and Marble Hill residents. This is exactly what is done in the communities on the border of the London Congestion Zone, and it works very well. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/CC-discount-residents-leaflet.pdf

It is wrong to look at the issue in black-and-white terms of toll or no-toll since this only leads to a no-toll quagmire; you should be looking at successful real-world examples of how to meet the goal of providing increased transit funding by discouraging car-based commuting while at the same time avoiding cries of local unfairness. The idea of a "border discount" is completely absent in Albany at the moment, and taking leadership of a pro-toll, pro-discount position could prove to be very successful.

Please consider reversing your public stance on this critical issue to reflect the true wishes of your constituents. Thank you.

etc.

Was done by those out to satisfy the demands of the Governor and State Legisalture.

The bookeeping showed the MTA was breaking even or having surpluses while borrowing $billions, so fares could be kept low and tax dollars could be diverted elsewhere (or cut), allowing state officials to seem like they were delivering something for nothing.

The big increase in spending is on retirement benefits, which the state legislature is always voting to increase.

And construction contracts, because the MTA spends in booms when costs soar and is forced to cut capital spending in busts when construction costs fall and construction workers need jobs. What would the state legislature had said if the MTA has saved up billions to save money in the long run?

Those who work for the MTA should have resigned rather than go along with the most selfish, shortsighted interests of state poltiicans, and run against them. THEY DID WHAT YOU DEMANDED WHAT THEY DO. And now there is no going back.

This is outrageous.

I think the table on Section IV of this page 2009-2010 New York State Executive Budget says it all:
http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/Transportation.html

The NY State Department of Transportation funding is increasing by 4.5% (for highway construction which will increase traffic) but decreasing aid to the MTA by 10.2%. You can't blame that on MTA bookkeeping.

The Senate has demanded a "forensic" audit of the people who build and maintain our rails. Where are the calls for a forensic audit of the people who build and maintain our highways?

Our priorities as a state are backwards. If we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our carbon dioxide emissions, and improve the streetscape of the city. All this can be accomplished by ending the bickering about red herrings and just finding a way to invest mass transit.

“I strongly objected to the fare hike proposed by the MTA for next year. Every family is facing higher prices for food, electricity and many other necessities and transit fares just went up a few months ago. We simply cannot afford another increase. The Assembly majority advanced a plan earlier this year to have the wealthiest New Yorkers - those who earn $1 million or more a year - pay slightly higher income taxes. Our plan would have raised $1.5 billion a year, to be dedicated to transit and transportation projects. I will continue to fight for my constituents in Albany and for mass transit improvements that benefit us all.”

In unity,

Adriano Espaillat

CP was the equivalent of what bridge tolls would have been if there had been a moat outside the Manhattan core at 96th Street. Espaillat's constituents would have had to pay to travel to that area, but would not have had to pay to travel back and forth to the Bronx.

With bridge tolls, drivers would have to pay to drive between northern Manattan and the Bronx, but would not have to pay to go from Northern Manhatan to Midtown.

Mass Transit is more convenient from Northern Manhattan to Midtown than from Northern Manhattan to the Bronx.

So the CP plan the legislature refused to vote on was better than the bridge toll plan the legislature refused to vote on. Thereby showing the trend effect of politics on policy.

To correct this, we need to organize and inform the electorate. People must know his name, and what he did to them. We need good candidates to run against him. It will take a lot of work, but it is certainly possible with a dedicated group. Once candidates know that they will be held accountable, there positions may change. Look at Shelly Silver's position on Bridge tolls. First brazenly quashed congestion pricing. After his first opposition in decades, he changed his position to support Bridge tolls. There's nothing like an organized opposition to remind elected officials who really puts them in office.