Saturday, November 22, 2008

Tolling the Cross Bay (again)

The MTA's "doomsday budget" could force residents of the Rockaways and Broad Channel to pay a toll to drive across the Cross Bay Bridge for the first time in a long time.

MTA Could Force Cross Bay Bridge To Have Tolls

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

sorry, pay up

Ridgewoodian said...

I love the lady who asks, "why should we have to pay to go to a different part of the same borough?" Imagine if a subway rider said that - they'd be laughed off the screen (even though there's a pretty good argument to be made that they shouldn't have to pay at all). What these folks are saying is that they want the unlimited benefit of the use of this bridge - which presumably was not built for nothing and is not maintained for nothing - but wish to contribute little or nothing to its upkeep and, in fact, to shift that cost to others who benefit little or nothing from it. FUCK THEM!

Anonymous said...

No it works like this: No other neighborhood has to pay to enter another part of their home borough. It doesn't happen in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island or Manhattan. You can cross the Roosevelt Island Bridge for free and enter what is part of Manhattan.

And Ridgewoodian, FUCK YOU.

Anonymous said...

Oh, let the Irish trash pay their "fare" share. Pugh ma hone ya shanty bastards!

Anonymous said...

Why just the Irish? Lots of blacks and Hispanics live there, too.

Anonymous said...

Hey asshole, Ridgewoodian: There's another bridge on the other side of Broad Channel to the mainland which is free. It wasn't built or maintained for nothing, yet it has no tolls. What this means is that Rockaway, an already economically depressed area, will lose out on business. Can it afford to do that?

Anonymous said...

Hey, let's use the excess on the other MTA bridges to pay for the cross bay bridge, and let the transit riders "pay their fare (sic) share" - remeber, something like $4.00 of the current toll is used for purposes other than maintaining the bridges. Originally, the tolls were supposed to go away after the bonds to pay for the bridges were paid off (hahahahahaha)

Ridgewoodian said...

ANONYMOUS #1: No other neighborhood has to pay to enter another part of their home borough.

So? Would you eliminate subway fares if a rider's start and end point were in the same borough? Sure, I'd love that but would it make sense? I don't think so.

ANONYMOUS #2: There's another bridge on the other side of Broad Channel to the mainland which is free. It wasn't built or maintained for nothing, yet it has no tolls.

I don't know who built it or runs it but perhaps IT should be tolled, too. Look, it costs everyone money to travel in the city. Subway fares are going up and there are going to be service cuts. It seems fair that drivers should pay their share, too.

And for all of you calling me out and calling me names: Fuck all you all, bitches.

Anonymous said...

Of course! Because the solution for everything is to tax, tax, tax!

The Q53, from mainland Queens to the Rockaways, used to cost extra simply because it went over that bridge. It got scaled back to regular fare sometime in the 1990s. So I guess you want that to be reinstated, too. It's only fair, no?

Ridgewoodian, if you don't like being called names, perhaps you shouldn't have started with the "fuck them" mantra.

Jason in Kew Gardens said...

A bad idea which has next to no chance of coming to fruition.

Ridgewoodian said...

ANONYMOUS: Because the solution for everything is to tax, tax, tax!

Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch. Okay, very simply: until the day comes when we figure out how to run governments and build and maintain infrastructure without the use of money there are going to be taxes. Just deal with it. Now, one principle we’ve developed in this country is that the tax burden should be spread around - each person contributing their fair share, in proportion to their ability to contribute. Now, these people with their bridge have somehow been exempted from that. Their bridge, which primarily benefits them, cost money to build and costs money to maintain. Yet they’re not contributing anything towards that. In other words, they’ve managed to shift that burden to you and me and everyone else who doesn’t use it. Now, I’m willing to toss in my fair share towards its upkeep even though I don’t use it because I suppose I benefit indirectly - very indirectly - from the commerce it allows. But I’ll be damned if I think it fair that those who do use it get a free ride, especially when my transportation costs are clearly going to be going up (for less service, by the way) by hundreds of dollars a year.

ANONYMOUS: The Q53, from mainland Queens to the Rockaways, used to cost extra simply because it went over that bridge. It got scaled back to regular fare sometime in the 1990s. So I guess you want that to be reinstated, too. It's only fair, no?

No. Taxes and fees can be, and long have been, used to encourage behavior that’s seen as beneficial and discourage injurious behavior. The proliferation of private vehicles in this city is a problem for numerous reasons which have been discussed on this blog a thousand times before. Policies that would make it a better deal to take mass transit rather than clog up the streets with more cars would get my wholehearted approval.

ANONYMOUS: Ridgewoodian, if you don't like being called names, perhaps you shouldn't have started with the "fuck them" mantra.

First of all, it wasn’t a mantra, it was a phrase indicating my disgust with these freeloading people. But that’s mere wordplay. I think you misunderstand me. I don’t care if such people call me names. In fact, I would question the state of my soul if such idiots and asses DIDN’T despise me.

Anonymous said...

As most of the money that is raised is not going back into the operation or maintenance of that bridge, I can refute Ridgewoodian's entire argument in one sentence.

If the government didn't waste money on stupid crap, there would be no need to raise the tolls or impose more taxes.

Thank you and good night.

Ridgewoodian said...

ANONYMOUS: As most of the money that is raised is not going back into the operation or maintenance of that bridge, I can refute Ridgewoodian's entire argument in one sentence.

How did you get access to the MTA’s books? You’re one of the few. How much do they take in on the bridge? How much does the upkeep/operation cost? Even if you’re 100% right - and, frankly, you sound more opinionated than informed, but I don’t have hard numbers in front of me so let’s say you’re completely right, no question, even so these people still are paying exactly NOTHING for the infrastructural resource they use. Which means that everyone else is subsidizing their driving habits. How does that make any sense at all in times of both fiscal and environmental crisis? No, that sweetheart deal and all others like it need to be ended.

Funny, when dang foreigners are given any kind of break at all - allowed to go to school, enter public housing, visit the emergency room - folks throw a fit about their tax money going to support them. Well, where’s the outrage here? Instead of tax money going to support a few drivers how about more and better subways and buses for the many. Once again, fuck those freeloading bastards. They don't want to pay a toll? I don't want to pay a fare. Life's a big shit sandwich; take a bite.

Anonymous said...

The MTA keeps 2 sets of books. he real one and the one they release to people who want to know what's going on. Alan Hevesi discovered that years ago.

I challenge anyone who thinks living in Rockaway with bus lines and a subway is easy. See how long it takes you to get to work on the A train. If you work somewhere in Queens or Brooklyn, see how long it takes you on the bus. Adding more of them won't make the ride better or faster. And taxing drivers won't, either. We've been trying this approach for decades and service has only gotten worse, not better.

Anonymous said...

"even so these people still are paying exactly NOTHING for the infrastructural resource they use."

Car registration fees, driver license fees, gas tax...nah, they aren't paying a dime.

Anonymous said...

Funny, when dang foreigners are given any kind of break at all - allowed to go to school, enter public housing, visit the emergency room - folks throw a fit about their tax money going to support them.

Absolutely right. Let's take the money we would spend on that and put it toward upkeep on the bridge. Everyone wins and the illegals can go back home.

Anonymous said...

"these people still are paying exactly NOTHING for the infrastructural resource they use."

And neither are illegal aliens, but you think that's fine. If someone's going to get away with getting something for free, let them at least be here legally.

Ridgewoodian said...

ANONYMOUS: Car registration fees, driver license fees, gas tax...nah, they aren't paying a dime.

But everyone has to pay those taxes and fees, wherever they live, whether they use that bridge or not. The ones who use it and don't pay for it are getting an extra service, free to them, paid for by everyone else.

ANONYMOUS:...neither are illegal aliens, but you think that's fine.

I didn't mention illegals. And here's a piece of advice dear old mom gave me once that I've found useful in life: never tell another person what they're thinking. There's no way you can know for sure what another person is thinking. Anyway, if there are illegals living near the bridge and want to drive over it I think they should pay for the privilige, too.