From the Times Ledger:The MTA reported tolls at the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel fell by 7.1 percent between Jan. 1 and May 31, the largest decline among MTA-operated crossings.
The Queens-Midtown Tunnel fell 5.4 percent and tolls on the Robert F. Kennedy (formerly Triborough) Bridge’s Manhattan span declined by 5.1 percent.
Otherwise, it was the Henry Hudson Bridge down 3.8 percent, Throgs Neck Bridge down 3.6 percent, Gil Hodges-Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge down 2.2 percent, Bronx-Whitestone Bridge down 1.2 percent and the Robert F. Kennedy Bronx span and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge both down 1.7 percent.
The Port Authority said truck traffic, which generates the most toll revenue, declined by double-digit levels. Truck traffic was down 11.2 percent from 4.2 million in the first six months of 2008 to 3.8 million in 2009.
The loss of truck traffic cost the Port Authority $3.6 million in the first half of the year.
8 comments:
The loss of truck traffic cost the Port Authority $3.6 million in the first half of the year.
That being the case, count on tolls to go up again real soon to make up for the shortfall in revenue. Just like ConEd's recent rate increase, justified by the utility by the decline in power usage. Supply and demand? Puh!
If they want more revenue from commercial vehicles,they need to reinstate 2 way tolls on the Verrazano bridge.
"Supply and demand? Puh!"
Not in a government controlled organization. That's why socialism simply doesn't work.
First of all, this should have nothing to do with congestion pricing. The article mentions nothing about it, and I don't know anyone who said that it's an impossibility for traffic to fall in other ways.
Also, traffic isn't necessarily falling overall. It probably is due to the rising unemployment rate as evidenced by the falling trans Hudson subway traffic, but not for the reasons mentioned in the article. The article is incredibly misleading about that. All it seems to be saying is traffic on the TOLLED crossings are falling.
It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to say that people are toll shopping and crossing over free alternatives where available, and that the drop in traffic is magnified by just looking at tolled crossings.
Thanks to the previous poster for injecting some resoning into the otherwise blind campaign against east river tolls.
The problem with congestion pricing is that it is not truly intended to get more people to take the train. It is intended to make money. In order to do that, you need to keep people driving. Otherwise it will be an unmitigated disaster. In London, the experiment touted as proof that the plan works, they had to not only expand the congestion area but also had to hike the toll in order for it to be profitable. And pollution went up, not down. But the advocates neglect to mention that for some reason. They also fail to explain how the people who they project will opt for the train will fit on a subway at rush hour with, for example, the 7 train already running at capacity and as frequently as possible.
Thanks to the previous poster for injecting some reasoning into the otherwise blind campaign against cars.
As more businesses leave New York City, congestion pricing will become more of a moot point.
Massive unemployment will prevail, and another economic slide will grip those who remain.
Post a Comment