News   Jul 30, 2024
 841     3 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 494     0 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 611     1 

"Most NYC drivers oppose mayor's new $8 fee: survey"

Pep'rJack

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
.
Most NYC drivers oppose mayor's new $8 fee: survey

by Joan Gralla
May 3, 2007

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070503/us_nm/newyorkcity_traffic_dc


NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York drivers opposed Mayor Michael Bloomberg's new traffic-fighting $8 fee for taking a car into Manhattan, a survey said on Thursday, and almost half of the group said it would force them out of their cars.

By a margin of 43 percent to 51 percent, the 500 drivers surveyed on behalf of a business group came out against the so-called congestion pricing strategy.

The Republican mayor says the fee is needed to improve air quality and raise $31 billion for new tunnels, commuter rail links, subways and buses.

The state government would have to approve the new fee, which was one of 127 energy conserving and greenhouse gas-cutting plans Bloomberg unveiled on April 22, which was Earth Day.

The poll revealed just how persuasive the mayor might have to be though his plan is supported by over 70 business, civic and green groups. Business backers include the Partnership for New York City, which commissioned the survey. It says traffic jams cost the regional economy $13 billion a year.

A majority of drivers still opposed the new fees, by a 47 to 45 percent margin, even after the pollsters explained the potential benefits, from cleaner air to less traffic.

The motorists also were told that Londoners overwhelmingly approved their congestion pricing plan, launched around 2003.

Only 35 percent of the drivers supported Bloomberg's plan versus 61 percent against it when told about the $8 fee.

Some legislators who represent the city's four outer boroughs have slammed the proposed congestion fee. They say the plan hits poor residents the hardest, explaining they often must drive as commuting by bus or subway just takes too long.

WHAT'S YOUR MOTIVATION?

But the survey contradicted that understanding of what motivates people to drive.

"In a clear indication that saving time is not a primary reason for driving, 61 percent of drivers say that mass transit would be as fast or faster," Kathryn Wylde, who runs the Partnership for New York City, said in a statement. Some 66 percent of motorists from Queens and Brooklyn share that view.

The average commute was just 30 minutes, the survey said. That is much shorter than the trips sometimes endured by people who live in more sprawling cities, such as Los Angeles.

Even if an average Manhattan commute was doubled, only 48 percent of the drivers would consider an alternative, according to the survey, which had a 4.4 percent margin of error.

But 46 percent said they would use another option if they had to pay an $8 fee, the poll added. It was conducted from March 12 to April 4 -- before Bloomberg unveiled his plan, which would let motorists deduct the new fee from bridge and tunnel tolls.

A total of 267,186 commuters from across the region drive to jobs in Manhattan's central business district, which runs from 60th Street down to the Battery, the island's southern tip, the survey said, citing U.S. Census data.

New York City has the biggest U.S. mass transit system with nearly 8 million daily riders. Drivers make up just 16 percent of all the commuters who work in this dense section of Manhattan, the survey said.

Just over half -- 53 percent -- of these motorists live in one of New York City's five boroughs. Staten Island contributes the most car commuters -- 31 percent. Queens sends in 17 percent, followed by the Bronx, with 15 percent and Brooklyn, with 11 percent, according to the survey.

"Ironically, drivers who live in Manhattan, which offers the best mass transit system, were more likely than those from the other boroughs to say that they use a car because mass transit is not easily available," Wylde added.
.
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York drivers opposed Mayor Michael Bloomberg's new traffic-fighting $8 fee for taking a car into Manhattan, a survey said on Thursday, and almost half of the group said it would force them out of their cars.
figures...
 
^ You're right, of course, but just to be clear: I didn't post this to suggest that the fee was a 'bad' idea or something, or that it's doomed because the all-important driver demographic doesn't care for it - quite the opposite. I'd also like to know what the population as a whole thinks about this, but the opinions of drivers wrt this issue are obviously highly significant, as they are the target of the fee.

from the article:

"A majority of drivers still opposed the new fees, by a 47 to 45 percent margin, even after the pollsters explained the potential benefits, from cleaner air to less traffic ... Ironically, drivers who live in Manhattan, which offers the best mass transit system, were more likely than those from the other boroughs to say that they use a car because mass transit is not easily available."

^ Speaks volumes re typical driver mentality.

"46 percent said they would use another option if they had to pay an $8 fee"

^ :)
 
"Ironically, drivers who live in Manhattan, which offers the best mass transit system, were more likely than those from the other boroughs to say that they use a car because mass transit is not easily available."

^ Speaks volumes re typical driver mentality.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Because transit in Manhattan is so good, the only ones left driving are the ones for whom taking transit is not available to serve their needs, maybe reverse commuting to Long Island or Jersey or somesuch. It's the folks living where the transit isn't quite as good who won't take it because it's too slow or otherwise unattractive.
 
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Because transit in Manhattan is so good, the only ones left driving are the ones for whom taking transit is not available to serve their needs, maybe reverse commuting to Long Island or Jersey or somesuch. It's the folks living where the transit isn't quite as good who won't take it because it's too slow or otherwise unattractive.

Transit in Manhattan is good? Why do you think taxis are so popular. The route maps look great, but talking the subway on the weekends is offly slow and packed. The MTA in my opinion has a knack of ensuring all trains are at capacity by bleeding them, even the highly travelled 6 train. Rush hour service is good, but if people are depending on transit 7 days a week, I give Toronto higher grades on service, while NYC very bad ratings. I got pissed after 2 years and leased a car. Going out to the other boroughs is very faustrating in addition. Going anywhere except for a one short transit trip became way to irritating with trip times way to varying. Its one thing to have an extensive network, its another to wait 15 minutes for a 6 train, or 45 minutes for an F train on the weekend, if it is actually running. I'd rather have a toronto route map with much more reliable service so if a subway isn't running to where you go, you drive. Vs NYC where a subway probably runs out there, but you could get lucking and catch all trains very quickly, or get stuck with averages, and waiting for trains way too long (I often wonder if MTA commutter trains are much more frequent than half the subway lines).

I will hate paying $8 dollars in addition to my Ezpass toll, but on the flip side, if there is less drivers on the road, it maybe an easier drive.
 
Interesting to hear that from someone living in Manhattan. But you would see that I was responding to a survey which was in comparison to the other boroughs. Or are you stating that transit is "more easily available" in the other boroughs than in Manhattan?
 
Indeed, it's basically like reading a CAA/AAA poll of its members.

Hey, whaddya know?!?

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

Majority don't like road tax: Survey
From today's Star

Tolls would drive money out of city, but fan thinks plan would benefit GTA
May 08, 2007 04:30 AM
Tess Kalinowski
Transportation Reporter

A survey by the Canadian Automobile Association of its own members reads like a warning to politicians considering the thorny issue of congestion tolls on roads leading into downtown Toronto.

It shows two thirds of CAA members in the Toronto area disapprove of toll roads in general and nearly 60 per cent disagree with taxing busy routes like the Gardiner Expressway or Don Valley Parkway to cut congestion.

Many of the 2,600 surveyed online said congestion tolls would have them turning around and driving their money right out of the city.

About 40 per cent said they would work somewhere else.

Fifty-eight per cent and 47 per cent, respectively, said they would shop and seek entertainment elsewhere if the city went ahead with its plans.

The results, "clearly indicate that using a congestion fee or road toll as a revenue tool will simply shift Toronto's growing gridlock problem to other routes in the city," said Faye Lyons, a CAA government relations spokesperson.

But at least one supporter of congestion tolls says the same report contains encouraging news for his side.

"This survey shows over 40 per cent of commuters will drive less,"said University of Ottawa Environmental Law Professor Stewart Elgie, who was in Toronto yesterday.

"That would have benefits for downtown traffic, climate change and smog."

He points to the finding that 32 per cent of those surveyed said they would take public transit more often if there were road tolls and 29 per cent said they would carpool more often.

But Elgie said revenue from road tolls has to be used to improve the quality and frequency of public transit to be effective in reducing congestion.

"Most people don't take public transit because it's not convenient.

"If public transit became more convenient and less expensive more people would choose to take it," he said.

"We don't want fewer people coming into Toronto, we want to change the way they come in."

Among those surveyed, 67 per cent said they always drive to work and only 3 per cent indicated they use public transit.

About 30 per cent said they approve of road tolls only if the implementation is "fair and reasonable."

That's a remarkable thumbs up to a new tax, says Elgie.

"You would be hard pressed to find any other new tax that had a 30 per cent support," he said.

"It's because people in Toronto realize traffic congestion and pollution are big problems."

Since it introduced congestion tolls into its downtown in 2003, London, England has seen a 20 per cent reduction in downtown traffic and a 30 per cent increase in the speed of cars and buses moving through the city centre, said Elgie.
 
Next: Conservatives say 83% of its members surveyed say that Stephen Harper is best suited to lead Canada. Liberal Stephane Dion got 4%, the NDP's Jack Layton 2%, and Bloc's Gilles Duceppe 11%.
 
Interesting to hear that from someone living in Manhattan. But you would see that I was responding to a survey which was in comparison to the other boroughs. Or are you stating that transit is "more easily available" in the other boroughs than in Manhattan?

Well, actually, you said transit in Manhattan is good. (if its in comparison to just other boroughs, then its not an argument for the toll as it doesn't mean that transit is good, its just good in comparison to other boroughs) I have very few complaints in rush hour, but unless you stay in your local neighbourhood, vs. other cities the service is not on par.

Its quite interesting that a lot of new yorkers don't realize how much better service should be, which my 2cents is that they've never travelled extensively on other systems to benchmark it against.

Generally, I would be in favor of such taxes, but my only beef is that I'd doubt the money will go back into the system. Its faustrating when the MTA has hundreds of millions in surplus at yearend, and then they decide to give holiday season free fares - instead of reinvesting in the system.
 
Well, actually, you said transit in Manhattan is good.

Well, sure, responding to a quote from an article which read "Manhattan, which offers the best mass transit system", which too was in comparision to the other boroughs.

Reading your complaints, I could be substituting "Manhattan" and "New York" for "London" and saying most of the same things. However, Londoners do seem to realise that things should be better, possibly due to trips to the continent.
 
Everyone: I live in the NYC area myself-I fully understand the need for a congestion charge on weekdays in Manhattan S of 96th Street. There also should be incentives to avoid Manhattan - The high toll W on the Verrazano Bridge - $8 I believe is the toll-is a problem in itself also. Mayor Mike Bloomberg came up with the idea from the congestion charge that drivers pay to travel into Central London from 7am to 6pm weekdays-8 pounds(about 16 US Dollars) that allows drivers unlimited access to the Central Zone. The link to Transport for London is: WWW.CCLONDON.COM/ It is quite informative and includes mass transit links for services such as the London Underground. Take a look and decide for yourselves what your opinion on this is. LI MIKE
 
Well, for the most part, there are already tolls to get into Manhattan. All they need to do is to add it to the Queensborough bridge, as I'm sure there are many like me who take the last exit before the midtown tunnel on the I495 via Van Dam to get to it. But basically, we are talking about adding a second toll.

But anyways, its just another tax grab as you are never going to get rid of congestion. I use to the GW bridge to get to NJ to shop in the Paramus area almost every weekend. That bridge, with ezpass (its basically peak time during all day every day, it ends like at 10-11pm), its $5 bucks.

Approx 53 million cars pay a toll each year (you only pay one direction), at $5 a pop, thats approx $325million a year. The PA's total investment on that bridge is cumulative 2005, $1.021 billion, way more than enough to cover a costs of capital, and running the bridge, plus a heafty profit. Hence, they are already taxing people to travel in manhattan, this 'new' toll is just a further tax grab.

Opened to Traffic:
Upper Level: October 25, 1931
Lower Level: August 29, 1962
Bus Station opened: January 17, 1963
Length of Bridge (between anchorages): 4,760 feet
Width of bridge: 119 feet
Width of roadway: 90 feet
Height of tower above water: 604 feet
Water clearance at mid-span: 212 feet
Number of Toll Lanes:* Upper Level: 12
Lower Level: 12
Palisades Interstate Parkway: 7
Cost of original structure: $59,000,000
PA investment as of December 31, 2005: $1,021,300,000
2006 Traffic Volumes
Total eastbound traffic: 54,265,000 vehicles
Total traffic (both directions): 108,530,000 vehicles


Operating statistics of the GWB
 

Back
Top