Bloomberg’s Congestion Tax Blocked

Let me get this straight...

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to ease transport gridlock in Manhattan with a congestion charge has been blocked by the state’s assembly.

The scheme would have charged most drivers $8 to enter the city’s centre between 0600 and 1800 on weekdays.

New York will now forfeit a $354m federal grant intended to kick-start the initiative, which aimed to persuade drivers to use public transport.

Our federal government wanted to give New York $354 million tax dollars in order to encourage them to raise more taxes on the people of New York City?  That’s just nuts. 

1. You wouldn’t have to tax me to convince me to not want to drive there.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 2118 hrs




2. The clear majority of New Yorkers are in favor of congestion pricing. For those of us who live and work in the city, it makes a lot of sense. The amount of time (and by extension money) that’s wasted stuck in crosstown traffic is simply phenomenal, and encouraging people (including visitors) to take mass transit would ease things for people who have to move around the city for work. More importantly, the fees would help rehabilitate the mass transit systems that most of us use—including many subway lines that are a century old.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 2124 hrs




3. That’s fine, NYTexan, let the New Yorker’s tax themselves, but why is the federal government wanting to give them $354,000,000 to help them out?  What benefit does this serve Wisconsin, Nevada or Texas?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2008 at 2156 hrs




4. Kook fringe leftist doing what kook fringe leftist do best-raising taxes.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 0707 hrs




5. That’s fine, NYTexan, let the New Yorker’s tax themselves, but why is the federal government wanting to give them $354,000,000 to help them out?  What benefit does this serve Wisconsin, Nevada or Texas?

   Its quite simple really.

   See if something like this would have passed in New York, Wisconsin could have implemented the same thing, which then would have Given Jim Doyle closer to another cool Billion dollars to raid from the transportation fund in order to “Balance the Budget”

   Glad I could be of service.

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 08, 2008 at 0712 hrs




6. This is the same thing they are doing in England. I met a guy from London last month and he was very unhappy with their tax (which is now being raised to $50 a day, $50 to drive into the city with your own car!). I thought he was kidding me when he was talking about it.

   How fast would that kill downtown Milwaukee?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 0758 hrs




7. I have to pay 2 bucks to drive into Chicago, at least if I want to take the highway.

   I don’t have a problem with cities tolling access to their downtown, Probably a great way to push things further out to the suburbs. The federal grant does seem kind of strange though.

   Posted by Matt on April 08, 2008 at 0814 hrs




8. Milwaukee has no need for a congestion charge like a New York or London.  We don’t have the traffic problems they do so it isn’t needed.  But if New York should give back the 354 million of federal money cause they don’t need it why don’t we give back the $1.9 billion we are requested because that will lead to higher taxes too:)

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 0850 hrs




9. They’ll find other ways to skin this cat. Bridge and tunnel toll surcharges, parking surcharges, parking taxes, higher parking fines. Them there New Yorkers are resourceful. But what I don’t get is how most people view the congestion of operating a car in New York as a better alternative than public transportation. PT is simply a faster, cheaper, more efficient way to get anywhere in that city than operating a car. I’m surprised articificial restraints—such as a congestion charge—are necessary to make that clear to people, or to have any real effect on the problem.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 1301 hrs




10. Congestion pricing is a completely rational way to allocate a scarce resource, in this case road space.  Milwaukee’s Kevin Soucie is a national expert on this topic.  Some opposition to the concept is knee-jerk in nature.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 1721 hrs




11. Looks like they’re scrapping that idea and instead thinking of implementing a millionare tax.  Check out the Drudge Report for the article. 

    I’m just glad I live here and not there!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 08, 2008 at 2145 hrs




12. Careful Cate - there isn’t a tax around that the dems don’t like.

    And George - the reaction isn’t knee jerking - it’s trying to fight being overtaxed in this tax hell of a state.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0651 hrs




13. Congesting pricing could reduce transportation spending, compared to levels that otherwise would exist.  If it were just another tax then I agree the policy would be unwise.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0726 hrs




14. I do agree that it is an intriguing idea George…..

    However in order to make it more palpable to the taxpayers—at least in Wisconsin—Some other Tax would have to be—or should be Dropped—such as the Fuel tax or the registration fee for vehicles.

    Otherwise it just becomes a TAX upon A TAX.

    And it would have to be segregated, which means Doyle could not move it into the General fund.

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 10, 2008 at 0826 hrs




15. Sounds somewhat similar to the hospital tax Doyle is pushing. Raise the taxes and get money from the Feds.

    As Senator Ellis points out that Federal money is not coming from the trees.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on April 10, 2008 at 1608 hrs