That photo says it all.

Remember Anthony Weiner promised that he would get all the money the NY area needs for transit from the federal government if we didn’t pass congestion pricing. PROMISED.

But I don’t expect him to deliver this year. I expect him to deliver next year, after the federal election, but before the Mayoral election.

How can we fund the MTA Capital Plan?

o Hidden $billions, promised by the City and State Comptroller’s offices every time a fare increase is proposed.

o Brodsky’s $billions.

o Weiner’s $billions.

Until all of the above are prepared to admit that they are full of it, I don’t want to be asked for anything else.

YES! YES! YES!

How high can gas prices go? It’s not even the summer driving season yet!

Fifteen years the gas tax has held steady against inflation while all other expenses of transportation have increased, by my assumption that is about a 400% decrease in the percentage taxed. The real news here is not that gas taxes have to go up but rather that they have to stop going down.

Additionally, this phenomena is not unique to Federal Taxes but to Petroleum Business Taxes (PBT) in NY as well. What New York should do is shed the old formula and attach a percentage to the price of gas. New York produces no oil and we produce excellent mass transit, to make that substitution is not something even David Ricardo would object to.

Since Brodsky hates the “ability to pay” criterion for regulating travel, where is his legislation to subsidize gas purchases by lower income drivers – can’t we do better than Venezuela or Qatar?

Gas prices are still underpriced.

(I think McCain’s plan to roll back the Federal Tax is a horrible idea)

Clinton endorsed it. I thought better of both of them.

I disagree with The Prince that it is a smart, if ethically questionable move. Gasoline may be over $4.00 per gallon this summer.

Another candidate could point out that 25 years of pandering put us in this position, and here they are proposing an 18 cent per gallon rollback — at the expense of our infrastructure — as a solution for a $2.50 per gallon run up our dependence caused.

I think Brian Goldner is the dude in the photo.

The cost of gas has nothing to do with that ill thought out tax on Brooklyn and Queens. Maybe they should toll all the roads on Long Island to discourage driving AND suburban development. The suburbs are outgrowing the city.

http://demographia.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-than-90-of-metropolitan-growth-in.html

In fact, they make up over 90% of growth in the region. Until that changes, a tax on Brooklyn and Queens just makes no sense except to rip Brooklyn and Queens from the fabric of their own city.

Regardless of the price of gas, or the suggested ill-conceived tax on Brooklyn and Queens, people will continue to try to drive in because their coming from further and further away at great cost to the environment.

Until you change this trend, they can shove the Brooklyn and Queens tax where the sun don’t shine.

Toll the LIE and the Garden State.

Check again, Ruben. The site you linked to says that only 57.2% of NYC-area population growth is in the suburbs. The only cities with similar numbers are Jacksonville and Oklahoma City (?), and the only cities with lower suburban growth share are San Antonio and San Jose. Basically, the suburbs have been growing a little more than the city, but barely, and they’re probably stopping now with the gas prices what they are.

Regardless of the official definition of “suburb,” if you spend most of your time driving, you’re living a suburban lifestyle, Mr. Brooklyn. The whole point of congestion pricing was to get people like you to act more like Brooklynites and less like Lynbrook-ites. Silly us, what were we thinking?

Make up your mind. When trying to shove this thing down my throat it was claimed almost nobody in Brooklyn would be affected because we don’t drive in. Now you admit that it’s designed to keep Brooklynites out of Manhattan with our cars.

It’s not inconsistent. It’s a tiny minority of Brooklynites who act like jerks by bringing their cars into Manhattan.

If your meaning of “The whole point of congestion pricing was to get people like you to act more like Brooklynites and less like Lynbrook-ites” means that we shouldn’t raise children and should agree to be land locked from Manhattan and the rest of the nation by tolling the Brooklyn Bridge, let me hit you with a clue stick, over my dead body will I ever pay a toll to drive in my city.

Well, let me take that clue stick and whap you back with it. Don’t want to pay the toll? Take the subway like everyone else. You know what you’ll see on the subway? LOTS of families with children.

Okay, Ruben, I’m tired of using this clue stick. Here it is, feel free to beat yourself up with it. Come back when you actually know what you’re talking about.

Ruben:
The people stuck in NJ or on Long Island have very limited alternatives but to take the LIE or GSP to move around, unlike those who commute into the city, so your comment to toll those roads is completely specious.

The problem is that the cheapest alternative for many people is to drive into the city. No tolls on the bridges, free parking galore throughout the city and most likely a waiting list to park at suburban rail stations.

Build more parking at suburban rail stations; extend the 7-line to Secaucus with a huge parking lot, toll the bridges and take away the free parking on the city.

There are so many ways to tackle congestion in the city but so often is gets down to Manhattan-envy and a defense of the phantom poor driving public.

In the past year relatively few drivers severely restricted driving mileage or changed driving habits to significantly decrease the consumption of oil. There was no massive activity of SUV owners to trade in their vehicles, for example. The result of this steady increasing demand for gasoline is as responsible for the escalation of oil prices as the suppliers are. The continued high level of consumption of oil indicates that below $4.00 per gallon the demand for oil is relatively inflexible, e.g. does not significantly decrease when the price increases.

At or near $4.00 a gallon, however, signs of panic are emerging everywhere and consumer demand may prove to be flexible at this price so that alternatives replace driving and/or consuming oil/gasoline.

A “laissez faire” policy on the price of oil/gasoline may prove the most effective however painful, way to decrease demand and consumption of oil and help the climate. Many drivers won’t be able to afford the cost of their gasoline addiction and prove to be an alternative means of congestion pricing for every city by reducing the number of vehicles.

I’d like to see the figures and microeconomics grafts of the supply and demand curves for oil that show the price of oil at which consumer consumer demand for oil drops so much due to increased price that the oil companies begin to suffer loss of revenue.

Reigning in the profiteers in the oil industry is called for, as well.

The creation of national and state departments with appointed Secretary of sane energy policies with emphasis on climate change is also required.

I

(The gas tax will be a good opportunity for O’Bama to distinguish himself. Will O’Bama do the right thing, step up to the plate and speak truth to power? I’m not holding my breath.)

It is a TREMENDOUS opportunity for Obama.

Both McMcain and Clinton have gone against their principles to pander to those who want the easy way out in the short term. Obama just needs to keep saying:

“Gas was $1.50 per gallon in 2000, when the politicians said vote for me and I’ll keep gas cheap so we can buy bigger cars and get bigger houses and burn more fuel. Now it’s $4.00, and everyone with bigger cars and bigger houses is trapped, stuck.”

“And what is their solution? Give you back 18.4 cents, which will be borrowed from your children! Gas is up $2.50 a gallon, you’re stuck burning more of it than ever before, and that’s their solution. We fell for it in 2000. I even fell for it once. Not anymore.”

In other words, it isn’t about liberals and conservatives, one part of the country vs. another, or one demographic against another. It is the politicians who have been scamming us all against everyone else. What an opportunity!

It would absolutely require a new tube, unless you’re going to route the 7 line above ground to the existing tunnel entrances on either side of the river. The only other way to use an existing tube would be to do massive alterations to connect a portion of the tube underground to a new 7 line on both sides and then seal up the current above ground entrances. And if you’re going to do that you might as well just build an entirely new tunnel anyway.

Suburban officials said that people in the suburbs demand something better than a subway ride, and only a one seat ride at a premium price to discourage the riff-raff would get them out of their cars.

Is that what they actually said or is that just your interpretation of the outcome.

Is it even possible for subways to run at grade, like trains or light rail? Or do they have to be either underground or elevated?

They can and do run at grade although they shouldn’t have grade crossings (they used to though).

In any case, I think the biggest issue with it is that its a waste of resources. Rapid transit (subways) is much better for urban areas with frequent stops. I doubt many people would switch from a Northeast Corridor/NJCL/M&E/Montclair-Boonton train at Secaucus and there is not enough passenger on the Main/Bergen County/Pascack valley line trains to come even close to justifying the headway of the number 7.

The AAA guy is more correct than he knows: drivers should be awfully discreet about using their cars. They should hide their faces in deep, sorrowful shame at the way their driving so flagrantly devalues, abuses, and pollutes our public spaces, irretrievable natural resources, clean air and water, and fellow humans’ lives and limbs. I’m surprised that more drivers don’t wear paper bags over their heads.