 To the editor:
Your editorial slamming the governor’s congestion pricing proposal is breathtaking in its parochialism.
Nowhere do you mention one of the proposal’s two primary objectives: to unsnarl traffic and improve car, taxi and bus travel times 15-20 percent. And you barely refer to its main goal, to raise revenue to pay for modern signals that will enable the same speed gains on our subways.
I have no beef with your bringing up congestion tolling’s potential hit to car owners. But every downtown resident — car owner and non-car owner alike — will benefit from quieter, safer and cleaner streets. Delivery and business costs will go down, not up, as trucks and trade-vans can service more stops instead of sitting in gridlock.
Downtown isn’t a suburb, it’s part of a city. The vast majority of trips here are by train, foot, bus and bike. You don’t have to love congestion pricing (though you should), but at least please give readers more than biased whining.
———————————————————————-
————————————————————————–
To the editor:
Mr. Komanoff: Quieter safer streets sounds very nice but is a dream. London has had a congestion charges for many years and the inner city is gridlocked. Dreams don’t always work.
Alan David
To the editor:
We have a car to be able to visit my father in the nursing home on Long Island at a moments notice in an emergency and the usual bi-weekly visits.
We pay an exorbitant fee to park it half a mile walk from home in a garage near the Brooklyn Bridge.
This fee should NOT be charged to residents.
Let’s get in front of all our electeds and CB1. There has to be a way this does not become another luxury tax that is not at a luxury, but a necessity for many of us.
Mary Perillo
To the editor:
We have to fight this new TAX or pay through the nose.
Mr. Rothenberg
|
|
