NYS tolls and fees going DOWN?

[W1GUH]

Not only does THAT confuse me....it might have caused a hole in the universe....

A couple of weeks ago I crossed the Tappan Zee bridge into Tarrytown. Had my $6 all ready. I drive up to the toll booth and it says:

CARS $5.00.

WTF? How did that happen? The toll went down? Must be "them" playing with our heads to cause whatever they want to cause?

Then, as if that wasn't bad enough...

Had my car inspected last Friday. When I made the appointment, the guy told me, "Registration and $37 cash", just like the last 10 years. I drop the car off and take a walk. When it's done I go in and the guys says, "$21.00". Huh? He said something about how the whole thing has changed.

I didn't watch what he did, but checking out the NYS Inspection website, it looks like the no longer have that dynamometer test. For cars 1995 or newer, the check that the on board computer is functioning. For cars older than that they visually inspect the pollution controls.

It always scared the crap out of me to see a car, and especially my car "rolling" at 60 mph. Wonder if any vehicle ever shot off the rollers at that speed?

Seem heads are gonna roll for making NYS more consumer friendly?

[KC2UGV]

Courtesy of Cuomo, and a whole lot of pushing by Sen. Grisanti.

[NQ6U]

That's good. I remember the shock I experienced the first time I had to pay the toll for a big rig crossing the George Washington Bridge: $36. I gave the toll-taker some shit over that.

[W1GUH]

That's good. I remember the shock I experienced the first time I had to pay the toll for a big rig crossing the George Washington Bridge: $36. I gave the toll-taker some shit over that.

I'm sure that when you realized that that was for BOTH directions you saw what a bargain it was! Right?

Hey....they gotta get $$$$ to build rail transit and to bolster the already fascist PA cops somewhere, y'know. It's for your safety, AND the safety of kids everywhere.

[NQ6U]

I'm sure that when you realized that that was for BOTH directions you saw what a bargain it was! Right?

I told the toll-taker that I could cross the San Francisco Bay Bridge (also in both directions) for nine bucks and it was five times longer. He said something like "so, go cross it, then."

[WØTKX]

Why whine to the toll taker? I'm sure you made the day a little brighter for him/her.

[W1GUH]

I told the toll-taker that I could cross the San Francisco Bay Bridge (also in both directions) for nine bucks and it was five times longer. He said something like "so, go cross it, then."

Classic New York comeback. Consider yourself honored.

[NQ6U]

Classic New York comeback. Consider yourself honored.

I know, that's why I mentioned it.

[NQ6U]

Why whine to the toll taker? I'm sure you made the day a little brighter for him/her.

I was on a deadline; I didn't have time to go to the PA...

Seriously, it was just a gut reaction to the initial shock of having to pay such a large toll, easily the highest I ever paid while out on the road.

[n2ize]

I'm sure that when you realized that that was for BOTH directions you saw what a bargain it was! Right?

Hey....they gotta get $$$$ to build rail transit and to bolster the already fascist PA cops somewhere, y'know. It's for your safety, AND the safety of kids everywhere.

Actually it costs a great deal to maintain the roads and bridges. And being the most heavily traveled roads they are in constant maintenance. The fascist cops just arrested a couple of guys who killed somebody a few towns away from here. Dang fascists, they should have let those sweet lovable kind murderers walk free.

[NQ6U]

Actually it costs a great deal to maintain the roads and bridges.

While that's true, it doesn't explain why it costs less a third to cross the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge than it does the George Washington Bridge even though the Bay Bridge is a much larger bridge. It's pretty clear that there's some gouging going on on the part of the PA. The GWB is the only allowed truck access into Manhattan from the west so there's really no way around paying the toll and the PA knows it.

[N2NH]

Maybe it's lower in GOP country (upstate) but as usual, here in the city, it's BOHICA time as the tolls are going up.


The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey announced Friday that it will seek to significantly raise the tolls on Hudson River crossings and all of its bridges and tunnels.Drivers crossing the Hudson can expect to see a $4 increase on E-ZPass lanes as early as this fall, bringing the toll up to $12. The authority is also proposing an additional $2 increase for 2014.
Meanwhile, cash tolls on these crossings would soar to $15 from $7, while PATH train fares would jump by more than 50% to $2.75 a ride.
Besides the George Washington Bridge and Lincoln and Holland tunnels, Port crossings include the Bayonne and Goethals bridges and the Outerbridge Crossing, which connect Staten Island to New Jersey.
While talks of toll increases have been prevalent in recent months, the ones proposed are far higher than what was anticipated.

Lower them upstate, raise them in the city. Typical. Donor city, Sponge state. Why am I not surprised?

Cars. $14.00 by 2014. A dozen bucks this year. (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110805/FREE/110809923##ixzz1UmPNKaG6)

[kc7jty]

Well, the folks in Philadelphia and environs will NEVER have to worry about tolls there dropping.

[KC2UGV]

Lower them upstate, raise them in the city. Typical. Donor city, Sponge state. Why am I not surprised?

Cars. $14.00 by 2014. A dozen bucks this year. (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110805/FREE/110809923##ixzz1UmPNKaG6)

Interesting. I don't think I use the Hudson Bridge... or any of the other crossings you named.

Sounds like the NY-NJ Port Authority is just working to maintain an extremely high traffic rate.

Should my tolls go up on the I-90 to pay for your bridge traffic? But, remember, you don't pay a toll if you take mass transit, walk, or bicycle.

[N2NH]

Interesting. I don't think I use the Hudson Bridge... or any of the other crossings you named.

Sounds like the NY-NJ Port Authority is just working to maintain an extremely high traffic rate.

Should my tolls go up on the I-90 to pay for your bridge traffic? But, remember, you don't pay a toll if you take mass transit, walk, or bicycle.

You can't bike on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They were going to build a pedestrian-bike lane, but the winds are always at gale force there because of proximity to the ocean and the effect of the narrows. You can't bike on the other bridges or tunnels either. The only bridge that you can bike to Jersey on is the George Washington, built before they thought of limiting access to NJ/NY. There are a fair number of days that you can't even use that on a bike or walking because of hazardous conditions.

Interestingly, the Port Authority of NY/NJ is presided over by the governors of their respective states. When was the last time a governor thought of revenues as a local matter? I'm sure it's okay not to pay tolls on I-90 for any NYC projects, but we should always fork over our cash for the benefit of the state UPstate. That's just jim-dandy.

[n2ize]

Interesting. I don't think I use the Hudson Bridge... or any of the other crossings you named.

Sounds like the NY-NJ Port Authority is just working to maintain an extremely high traffic rate.

Should my tolls go up on the I-90 to pay for your bridge traffic? But, remember, you don't pay a toll if you take mass transit, walk, or bicycle.

Yeah, but you (and I) live up in Tea Party country (a/k/a Sarah Palin Land). Us upstate guys want the liberals in NYC to pay our way.

[KC2UGV]

You can't bike on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They were going to build a pedestrian-bike lane, but the winds are always at gale force there because of proximity to the ocean and the effect of the narrows. You can't bike on the other bridges or tunnels either. The only bridge that you can bike to Jersey on is the George Washington, built before they thought of limiting access to NJ/NY. There are a fair number of days that you can't even use that on a bike or walking because of hazardous conditions.

Interestingly, the Port Authority of NY/NJ is presided over by the governors of their respective states. When was the last time a governor thought of revenues as a local matter? I'm sure it's okay not to pay tolls on I-90 for any NYC projects, but we should always fork over our cash for the benefit of the state UPstate. That's just jim-dandy.

I don't think you're supporting my portion of the state very much. In fact, you derive most of your cheap electricity from my area.

Maybe it's time we leave NYC roads to NYC to improve? Do you pay for my roads to be maintained here? I don't think so, not on a large scale.

If you don't like the high tolls, then stop using the facilities. Plain and simple. Walk, bike, or mass transit. No tolls paid then.

[n2ize]

The high tolls don't bother me so much. What I am furious about is the 75% tax I pay on tobacco. Every time I buy a tin of pipe tobacco from a reputable dealer, whether it be a direct purchase from a local tobacconist, or, from a quality online tobacconist I have to pay 75% tax. Fortunately I am a very light smoker so I don't purchase very often, 1 or 2 1.5 oz tins last me a year or more. Nonetheless, on an expensive quality mixture that is a hefty sum of money I give to that state just to exercise my legal right to enjoy a few puffs now and then. If I was a heavier smoker I would consider leaving the state. Bear in mind I am not opposed to paying a tax on my tobacco. But the tax should be < 50%. 75% is criminal. it's akin to a thug stealing my money.

As for NYC. They have their own anti-smoking gestapo. Roads ? I think NYC could sustain itself.

[KC2UGV]

The high tolls don't bother me so much. What I am furious about is the 75% tax I pay on tobacco. Every time I buy a tin of pipe tobacco from a reputable dealer, whether it be a direct purchase from a local tobacconist, or, from a quality online tobacconist I have to pay 75% tax. Fortunately I am a very light smoker so I don't purchase very often, 1 or 2 1.5 oz tins last me a year or more. Nonetheless, on an expensive quality mixture that is a hefty sum of money I give to that state just to exercise my legal right to enjoy a few puffs now and then. If I was a heavier smoker I would consider leaving the state. Bear in mind I am not opposed to paying a tax on my tobacco. But the tax should be < 50%. 75% is criminal. it's akin to a thug stealing my money.

As for NYC. They have their own anti-smoking gestapo. Roads ? I think NYC could sustain itself.

The cost of you smoking tobacco is born largely by non-smokers. How about we eliminate all taxes on tobacco, but also outlaw insurance policies covering tobacco related health issues, and forgo all tobacco subsidies.

Also, allow smokers to be sued due to injuries sustained by second-hand smoke.

You'll discover quickly the full costs of tobacco usage.

[W7XF]

Cigarette Taxes by State (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26076.html)

Looks like NYC residents would do well by taking the train into the first stop with a convenient to the station/bus stop store in NJ.

[n2ize]

The cost of you smoking tobacco is born largely by non-smokers. How about we eliminate all taxes on tobacco, but also outlaw insurance policies covering tobacco related health issues, and forgo all tobacco subsidies.

Also, allow smokers to be sued due to injuries sustained by second-hand smoke.

You'll discover quickly the full costs of tobacco usage.

This tax has nothing to do with preventing second hand smoke. They already have laws limiting secondhand smoke. NYC in particular has the most anti-smoking gestapo laws that I know of.

The thing is, I have no problem with any of that. If the nanny state wants to prevent people from smoking in bars, restaurants, public places thats fine. If they want to believe that well, that's fine with me. Just so long as they don't tell me I can't smoke in my own home or on my own property. Allowing smokers to be sued over secondhand smoke ? Let them prove that any single persons cigarette, cigar, pipe, or marijuana cigarette received their "injury" from second hand smoke. That's a load of bull but, in todays anti-smoker climate, who knows ? Somebody may try it.
I also have no problem with the idea of paying a tax. But a 75% tax (the highest tobacco tax in the nation) is pure simple unadulterated highway robbery.

[n2ize]

Cigarette Taxes by State (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26076.html)

Looks like NYC residents would do well by taking the train into the first stop with a convenient to the station/bus stop store in NJ.

I might just do that. The 75% tax applies to ALL OF NY state, not just NYC. I think NYC has some additional taxes on top of that. Many smokers in NY already either cross into Jersey or Connecticut. Or buy from dealers online that don;t charge the tax. It's like every other criminal act that government commits. People will find ways around it. And some people will exploit it to make money. If I can find a finer tobacconist out of state I might just travel out of state for tobacco. Only thing is I only smoke on rare occasions so a tin lasts me a very long time. Paying the tax is not too much of a burden for me. But I pity those who smoke more frequently and need to buy often.

[KC2UGV]

This tax has nothing to do with preventing second hand smoke. They already have laws limiting secondhand smoke. NYC in particular has the most anti-smoking gestapo laws that I know of.

The thing is, I have no problem with any of that. If the nanny state wants to prevent people from smoking in bars, restaurants, public places thats fine. If they want to believe that well, that's fine with me. Just so long as they don't tell me I can't smoke in my own home or on my own property. Allowing smokers to be sued over secondhand smoke ? Let them prove that any single persons cigarette, cigar, pipe, or marijuana cigarette received their "injury" from second hand smoke. That's a load of bull but, in todays anti-smoker climate, who knows ? Somebody may try it.
I also have no problem with the idea of paying a tax. But a 75% tax (the highest tobacco tax in the nation) is pure simple unadulterated highway robbery.

The taxes cover the inevitable health care costs related to smoking.

[W1GUH]

This tax has nothing to do with preventing second hand smoke. They already have laws limiting secondhand smoke. NYC in particular has the most anti-smoking gestapo laws that I know of.

The thing is, I have no problem with any of that. If the nanny state wants to prevent people from smoking in bars, restaurants, public places thats fine. If they want to believe that well, that's fine with me. Just so long as they don't tell me I can't smoke in my own home or on my own property. Allowing smokers to be sued over secondhand smoke ? Let them prove that any single persons cigarette, cigar, pipe, or marijuana cigarette received their "injury" from second hand smoke. That's a load of bull but, in todays anti-smoker climate, who knows ? Somebody may try it.
I also have no problem with the idea of paying a tax. But a 75% tax (the highest tobacco tax in the nation) is pure simple unadulterated highway robbery.

It's been known for a long, long time (I learned it in college economics in '68 -- when it was alread a "known" phenomenon) that tobacco taxes are very, very efficient taxes. The story goes that Britain thought it was going to do smokers a "favor" by encouraging people not to smoke with a very hefty tax on tabacco. Did people quit? Nope. The government got lots of $$$$$$ from the taxes.

Don't let the lying politicians fool you. Tobacco taxes have nothing whatsoever to do with health. They have everything to do with unfailry taxing a group that has been proclaimed by the government to be scumbags to be oppressed. THEY know they're going to get big bucks. THEY know that because of the tyranny of the majority those usurious tobacco taxes will not have any impact whatsoever at the ballot box. THEY know that the nanny state is something that is easy to foist on us with this BS moralizing on the part of the government.

I've heard that those electronic cigarettes have been banned in some places. Those things emit nothing but harmless steam...there are NO health implicatiions whatsoever to the user or to those around him/her. IMHO, this PROVES the BS "moral judgement" that the government is encouraging to divide and conquer.

And, BTW, the bar/party crowd had been decimated by the no smoking in bars law. The cool people have pretty much stopped going out, only to be replaced by mayor mike wannabes. And those people are soooooooo uninteresting, plain vanilla nothings when you get up close.

[WX7P]

It's been known for a long, long time (I learned it in college economics in '68 -- when it was alread a "known" phenomenon) that tobacco taxes are very, very efficient taxes. The story goes that Britain thought it was going to do smokers a "favor" by encouraging people not to smoke with a very hefty tax on tabacco. Did people quit? Nope. The government got lots of $$$$$$ from the taxes.

Don't let the lying politicians fool you. Tobacco taxes have nothing whatsoever to do with health. They have everything to do with unfailry taxing a group that has been proclaimed by the government to be scumbags to be oppressed. THEY know they're going to get big bucks. THEY know that because of the tyranny of the majority those usurious tobacco taxes will not have any impact whatsoever at the ballot box. THEY know that the nanny state is something that is easy to foist on us with this BS moralizing on the part of the government.

I've heard that those electronic cigarettes have been banned in some places. Those things emit nothing but harmless steam...there are NO health implicatiions whatsoever to the user or to those around him/her. IMHO, this PROVES the BS "moral judgement" that the government is encouraging to divide and conquer.

And, BTW, the bar/party crowd had been decimated by the no smoking in bars law. The cool people have pretty much stopped going out, only to be replaced by mayor mike wannabes. And those people are soooooooo uninteresting, plain vanilla nothings when you get up close.

There you go again with the government conspiracy crap.

Sorry, but I have a hard time generating any boo hoo for smokers. It's a filthy, invasive habit that's not only costs the usres but society in general through increased sickness by uninsured smokers.

We've been smoke free in restaurants out here since the 80's. It's great. I don't smell like a pack o' bros after eating anymore since I don't have to put up with the clown next me who has to light up the second he's done eating. You really notice how noxious smoking is when you go to Nevada. The casinos are nothing but gas chambers. No thanks.

[W1GUH]

There you go again with the government conspiracy crap.

Sorry, but I have a hard time generating any boo hoo for smokers. It's a filthy, invasive habit that's not only costs the usres but society in general through increased sickness by uninsured smokers.

We've been smoke free in restaurants out here since the 80's. It's great. I don't smell like a pack o' bros after eating anymore since I don't have to put up with the clown next me who has to light up the second he's done eating. You really notice how noxious smoking is when you go to Nevada. The casinos are nothing but gas chambers. No thanks.

So how's your broken nose and black eyes? Your repaired teeth doing well?

Or are you, too, suffering from the Nicotine Starvation Syndrome?

[WX7P]

So how's your broken nose and black eyes? Your repaired teeth doing well?

Or are you, too, suffering from the Nicotine Starvation Syndrome?

What?

[n2ize]

There you go again with the government conspiracy crap.

Sorry, but I have a hard time generating any boo hoo for smokers. It's a filthy, invasive habit that's not only costs the usres but society in general through increased sickness by uninsured smokers.

We've been smoke free in restaurants out here since the 80's. It's great. I don't smell like a pack o' bros after eating anymore since I don't have to put up with the clown next me who has to light up the second he's done eating. You really notice how noxious smoking is when you go to Nevada. The casinos are nothing but gas chambers. No thanks.

It's not "conspiracy crap", its reality. There is an all out war against smokers.

In my case I have no problem with them telling me I can't smoke in restarants, public buildings , private buildings, etc. If that is how they want it in this politically correct world then so be it. I also have no problem with paying a tax.

But it doesn't stop there. The anti-smoking gestapo now wants to ban me from enjoying a smoke outdoors as well. They are pushing for bans on smoking in my car, in public housing and, if they get their way, pretty much anywhere that anyone else might have a any possible chance of noticing my smoke. And the 75% tax is pure theft. I can understand a tax but 75% is criminal and purely discriminatory.

Then there is the pure hatred of smokers that is evolving. They accuse us of being a drain on the economy ? Uh, excuse me... at a hefty 75% tax I don't think so.

And what about respecting a persons right to enjoyment and satisfaction ? Why can't a person have the right to enjoy a smoke without being labelled a drain on society. If we are going to look at things that way then anyone who engages in any activity that imposes risks should be labelled accordingly. Why can't people simply learn to respect one another without trying to screw each one over. None of us are perfect. Some of us smoke, some drink, some swear, some gamble, some use drugs, some are coffee addicts, etc. Why can;t we just accept the fact that as people we do things, sometimes not always the healthiest or best things but, what is perfect in life. Why must everybody feel guilty if their life doesn't fit into some politically correct framework that somebody else created in their own image of what they feel "human perfection" should resemble ?

Even my Mom who hates smoking feels that the 75% tax is criminal and is taking terrible advantage of people.

[n2ize]

It's been known for a long, long time (I learned it in college economics in '68 -- when it was alread a "known" phenomenon) that tobacco taxes are very, very efficient taxes. The story goes that Britain thought it was going to do smokers a "favor" by encouraging people not to smoke with a very hefty tax on tabacco. Did people quit? Nope. The government got lots of $$$$$$ from the taxes.

+1000000000000000000 exactly. They know they are going to collect the revenue.



I've heard that those electronic cigarettes have been banned in some places. Those things emit nothing but harmless steam...there are NO health implicatiions whatsoever to the user or to those around him/her. IMHO, this PROVES the BS "moral judgement" that the government is encouraging to divide and conque

Very typical of those who want to control others. Even when a safer and far less intrusive alternative comes along the Nanny Nation crowd has to come along and condemn it...for our own good.



And, BTW, the bar/party crowd had been decimated by the no smoking in bars law. The cool people have pretty much stopped going out, only to be replaced by mayor mike wannabes. And those people are soooooooo uninteresting, plain vanilla nothings when you get up close.

I was downtown one night not long ago. All the cool people are gone. Now its all the overpriced trendy gimmick crap. Its smoke free but its also free of any of the cool, down to earth people who used to be around. People who were not perfect,people who didn't fit the trendy + politically correct model we see today that has been shoved down our throats but, they were cool and intelligent people to hang with and talk to. far and few between these days.

[N2NH]

I don't think you're supporting my portion of the state very much. In fact, you derive most of your cheap electricity from my area.

Maybe it's time we leave NYC roads to NYC to improve? Do you pay for my roads to be maintained here? I don't think so, not on a large scale.

If you don't like the high tolls, then stop using the facilities. Plain and simple. Walk, bike, or mass transit. No tolls paid then.

Actually, we've been a donor city for decades now. In fact, the State Supreme court even sided with us and has required the state to give back billions of dollars that was sucked out of the city for upstate education - in EVERY county. We've yet to get it and I doubt if we will in my lifetime.

As far as using mass transit, I do. Owning a car is madness in a city like this and I speak from a decade of experience.

Still, I think I pay for those tolls despite that. In fact I'm sure of it.

[KC2UGV]

Actually, we've been a donor city for decades now. In fact, the State Supreme court even sided with us and has required the state to give back billions of dollars that was sucked out of the city for upstate education - in EVERY county. We've yet to get it and I doubt if we will in my lifetime.

As far as using mass transit, I do. Owning a car is madness in a city like this and I speak from a decade of experience.

Still, I think I pay for those tolls despite that. In fact I'm sure of it.

I'm pretty sure the power running your city offsets whatever money our school district might have gotten from NYC... WNY: Powering NYC for 90 years and counting...

[N2NH]

I'm pretty sure the power running your city offsets whatever money our school district might have gotten from NYC... WNY: Powering NYC for 90 years and counting...

Actually we get most of our outside power from Hydro-Quebec. I'm sure that WNY gets plenty of $$$ for supplying NYC with any small amount of electricity, unlike the unreturned tax dollars collected from us. But please, based on your outrage, do let us know if WNY plans on supplying that pittance for free. I'm sure that would inspire interest here. It might make the area more famous for that than what it is famous for now. (http://www.librarising.com/astrology/celebs/images2/NOP/ojsimpson.jpg) ;)

BTW:


The average New Yorker consumes less than half of the electricity of someone who lives in San Francisco and nearly one-quarter the electricity consumed by someone who lives in Dallas. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City)- Wiki

But you know us New Yawk Eleeteests. LINK TO ABOVE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City#Energy_effic iency)

There is also this set of facts. It puts to rest the not so factual allegations that you have made. Check out pages 12 through 14 and the nice picture which sez: (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1-LwGA19ZW4FcaSi7BT2ZFFNapQrBEnfsCh79R_NRt1rC2vkEEqg IWwWzhkj9&hl=en_US)

3.7 Gigawatts from Westchester (directly north of the city), 1 Gigawatt from New Jersey and 300 Megawatts from Long Island. The rest is generated internally. And since this is the latest information available on the web (2004), generation has increased inside the city to make it less dependent on outside sources since then.

If you have otherwise verifiable proof, please post it. Can't wait to get those billions of $$$ back from the state. Considering that this was decreed nearly a decade ago, I also hope to live long enough to see it spent here too. Nor can I wait to see the outrage of WNY for the monies NYC spends on their electricity. :snicker:

[n2ize]

Uh oh... Looks like WNY and NYC are battling it out, NYC got off with a few hard rights and a straight punch to the jaw staggering WNY but WNY came back with a series of hard jabs and a left to the temple staggering NYC momentarily. But so far neither has hit the canvas. Now NYC has come back with a few hard hits and has scored a few points. Will WNY be able to make a comeback ?? Stay tuned for the next round folks. Being that I'm betwixt east and west I am referee... or is that refugee ?

[NQ6U]

Uh oh... Looks like WNY and NYC are battling it out [...]

Sounds to me like WNY has an inferiority complex.

[KC2UGV]

Actually we get most of our outside power from Hydro-Quebec. I'm sure that WNY gets plenty of $$$ for supplying NYC with any small amount of electricity, unlike the unreturned tax dollars collected from us. But please, based on your outrage, do let us know if WNY plans on supplying that pittance for free. I'm sure that would inspire interest here. It might make the area more famous for that than what it is famous for now. (http://www.librarising.com/astrology/celebs/images2/NOP/ojsimpson.jpg) ;)


If that is the case, I wonder how NYC is getting Niagara Power Credits for cheap electric rates, while WNY's rates are some of the highest in the nation?

I'm cool with reserving cheap Niagara Credits for WNY, rather than allotting them to NYC...



BTW:



But you know us New Yawk Eleeteests. LINK TO ABOVE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City#Energy_effic iency)

There is also this set of facts. It puts to rest the not so factual allegations that you have made. Check out pages 12 through 14 and the nice picture which sez: (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1-LwGA19ZW4FcaSi7BT2ZFFNapQrBEnfsCh79R_NRt1rC2vkEEqg IWwWzhkj9&hl=en_US)

3.7 Gigawatts from Westchester (directly north of the city), 1 Gigawatt from New Jersey and 300 Megawatts from Long Island. The rest is generated internally. And since this is the latest information available on the web (2004), generation has increased inside the city to make it less dependent on outside sources since then.

If you have otherwise verifiable proof, please post it. Can't wait to get those billions of $$$ back from the state. Considering that this was decreed nearly a decade ago, I also hope to live long enough to see it spent here too. Nor can I wait to see the outrage of WNY for the monies NYC spends on their electricity. :snicker:

You do know, that the power system functions on a grid, right? And, your power costs are offset by getting cheap Niagara Power Credits, right?

If you had to pay face value for the generation in your own boundaries, your price would be substantially higher.


Uh oh... Looks like WNY and NYC are battling it out, NYC got off with a few hard rights and a straight punch to the jaw staggering WNY but WNY came back with a series of hard jabs and a left to the temple staggering NYC momentarily. But so far neither has hit the canvas. Now NYC has come back with a few hard hits and has scored a few points. Will WNY be able to make a comeback ?? Stay tuned for the next round folks. Being that I'm betwixt east and west I am referee... or is that refugee ?

lol


Sounds to me like WNY has an inferiority complex.

Not at all. We have no desire to be like NYC (We're already the second largest City in NYS)... And, I'm not one of those "Make NYC it's own state" groupies either.

However, unless you are ok with paying for road maintenance in my locale, don't expect me to shoulder the burden of a set of bridges I (As well as most of other NYS residents) will never use. They're not interstates, they're not interconnecting roads keeping the state adhesive. They are internal roads to NYS.

It would be akin to demanding money from the state to maintain the Sheridan Drive, or Main St. in Downtown Buffalo. Or, maintenance of the Skyway (Which is shouldered entirely by the CoB).

NYC needs to stop worrying about other's picking up the tab for their reckless use of cars.

[n2ize]

NYC needs to stop worrying about other's picking up the tab for their reckless use of cars.

NYC is a massive and incredibly busy place, to the point of mind boggling. NYC's mass transit system it's incoming and outgoing rail lines are already taxed to the max. Bikers, walkers ? the roads are filled with them. Unlike some other cities NYC is relatively friendly to bikers and pedestrians. But even with that massive mass transit system the roadways are taxed to the max as well. There is no getting arounf it. If NYC is going to run those roads are going to be filled with traffic all the time. Bottom line, it takes a lot to run a city as massive and as intensely busy as NYC. I've lived in or near it al my life and I am still amazed at what goes on there and what it takes to run the place. The traffic, the services, the tourism, the amount of work being done at any given moment. The place runs 24/365 thats for sure. No wonder NYC has the largest economy of any city in the USA and the second largest of any city on the world.

Not only can NYC be its own state, it could be its own country...literally.

[KC2UGV]

NYC is a massive and incredibly busy place, to the point of mind boggling. NYC's mass transit system it's incoming and outgoing rail lines are already taxed to the max. Bikers, walkers ? the roads are filled with them. Unlike some other cities NYC is relatively friendly to bikers and pedestrians. But even with that massive mass transit system the roadways are taxed to the max as well. There is no getting arounf it. If NYC is going to run those roads are going to be filled with traffic all the time. Bottom line, it takes a lot to run a city as massive and as intensely busy as NYC. I've lived in or near it al my life and I am still amazed at what goes on there and what it takes to run the place. The traffic, the services, the tourism, the amount of work being done at any given moment. The place runs 24/365 thats for sure. No wonder NYC has the largest economy of any city in the USA and the second largest of any city on the world.

Not only can NYC be its own state, it could be its own country...literally.

I understand how busy NYC is. But, then, it should follow, NYC picks up it's own tab, right?

[n2ize]

I understand how busy NYC is. But, then, it should follow, NYC picks up it's own tab, right?

For the most part but I also thing shared funding is beneficial as well. For example NYC pays it back in goods and services, revenue, etc. that it generates for the state. For example, I have no problem with some of my money going towards helping Buffalo and other parts of the state to maintain its roads and infrastructure. I look at it as money spent to keep the state alive and functional as a whole.

[KC2UGV]

For the most part but I also thing shared funding is beneficial as well. For example NYC pays it back in goods and services, revenue, etc. that it generates for the state. For example, I have no problem with some of my money going towards helping Buffalo and other parts of the state to maintain its roads and infrastructure. I look at it as money spent to keep the state alive and functional as a whole.

I don't agree here. Perhaps interstates. Maybe State Highways. But, for one city to support another's infrastructure is just ridiculous, and leads to the ever spiraling problem of people will keep moving there, because they never see the full impact of their own choices.

It's the same reason why I am appalled whenever the MTA fund gets tapped for a project in Albany, Rochester, or Buffalo. The MTA should fund the MTA. NFTA should fund the NFTA.

Cities should pay for their own infrastructures, and not depend on outside funding for it. Because only then, will people learn the full cost of their decision for living in a particular area.

[n2ize]

I don't agree here. Perhaps interstates. Maybe State Highways. But, for one city to support another's infrastructure is just ridiculous, and leads to the ever spiraling problem of people will keep moving there, because they never see the full impact of their own choices.

It's the same reason why I am appalled whenever the MTA fund gets tapped for a project in Albany, Rochester, or Buffalo. The MTA should fund the MTA. NFTA should fund the NFTA.

Cities should pay for their own infrastructures, and not depend on outside funding for it. Because only then, will people learn the full cost of their decision for living in a particular area.

I see it differently. I like to look at the whole picture, the entire state so to speak. I think each part of the state contributes something or other to the entire body of the state and contribute to the states entire revenue base. That's why I have no problem with some of my money going to help fund infrastructure among other things in NYC or in Buffalo. At one time Buffalo provided a great deal of manufacturing and industrial products and during those times if a percentage of my money went to fund things that were beneficial to Buffalo's industrial progress then so be it because, it was ultimately good for the state. If some of my money nowadays goes to improve Buffalo's infrastructure so they can improve, for arguments sake, the tourist trade, the IT industry, or make things more desirable for new residents then so be it. It helps increase the tax base and, overall provides revenue for the state which is a good thing. Likewise, if NYC ca improve its roads and mass transit infrastructure making it more desirable for new employers to move into the region, more tourists to visit, etc. then overall it helps bring more jobs and revenue into the state. Its a win-win for everybody. That's why I am a firm believer in sharing of funds from region to region. I think it makes good sense with respect to the state as a whole and in the long haul. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that we should go overboard with the idea of revenue sharing between areas. Local needs need to take priority. For instance, the critical needs of Buffalo shouldn't take a back seat to the needs of NYC or vice versa. But within reason shared capital makes sense and is beneficial to the state.

Think of it this way. It can also help me in a direct sense as well. As a resident of NY all areas are open to me.I may not live in Buffalo but it is a part of my home state and I may travel there and it is in my best interest that it's roads are well maintained and safe and its infrastructure in good condition. Likewise, the same conditions are important if or when I do business with companies that are located in Buffalo. If they can function better because more money was available to maintain infrastructure then I am better served. Likewise if you travel to NYC or conduct business with someone based in NYC. The better the infrastructure the better your needs are served.

So, direct or indirect I say sharing of capital is a worthwhile endeavor from which we all benefit.

[N2NH]

If that is the case, I wonder how NYC is getting Niagara Power Credits for cheap electric rates, while WNY's rates are some of the highest in the nation?

Yes, superceded by the highest in the nation here in NYC.


I'm cool with reserving cheap Niagara Credits for WNY, rather than allotting them to NYC...

They're your power company, tell them.


You do know, that the power system functions on a grid, right? And, your power costs are offset by getting cheap Niagara Power Credits, right?
If you had to pay face value for the generation in your own boundaries, your price would be substantially higher.

That is SOP when companies charge each other for power. They do not charge at the same rate as they do for comsumers.

I agree with that guy from Yonkers. I think that roads - all roads except private ones - should be paid for by the state. Problem is that much of what goes on here is based on the local economy. If we're going to be that autonomous, we should be our own state. Westchester, Orange, Rockland, Nassau, Suffolk, New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond and Bronx counties. When neighboring counties in NJ get sick of being raped by the rest of their state, they can join us too. Be the best thing that ever happened to us.

[KC2UGV]

Yes, superceded by the highest in the nation here in NYC.


As it should be. Supply and demand being what it is...



They're your power company, tell them.


No, they're not. It's NYS's power company. Niagara Power Authority, ran by appointees who live in NYC.



That is SOP when companies charge each other for power. They do not charge at the same rate as they do for comsumers.


This is not companies vs. private rates. NYC's rates are cheaper than they would be otherwise, because usage in NYC is subsidized by NYS, the the detriment of the people living in the region where it's generated...

If WNY could get the same power credits that NYC gets for the power we generate, our electric costs would be about 25% what they are today.



I agree with that guy from Yonkers. I think that roads - all roads except private ones - should be paid for by the state. Problem is that much of what goes on here is based on the local economy. If we're going to be that autonomous, we should be our own state. Westchester, Orange, Rockland, Nassau, Suffolk, New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond and Bronx counties. When neighboring counties in NJ get sick of being raped by the rest of their state, they can join us too. Be the best thing that ever happened to us.

Fine. If all roads should be state financed, then that would work. But, as it is, you are complaining about local use roads not being subsidized by the entire state. It's akin to demanding NYC pays a share of road maintenance on Main St. in downtown Buffalo (Which, should in reality be paid entirely by the state, since it's NY5). That's ludicrous.

If Buffalo needs improvements to our roads, then we should find the means to finance it. Through taxes here, tolls, or budget cuts to other projects. Not going to NYC and demanding they spend money to maintain our roads. And, conversely, NYC should not be asking the state for money to finance their roads. If tolls are needed, then tolls are needed.

Unless, of course ALL road maintenance is taken care of by the state. But, that would be unmanageable. Local areas know what streets need focus much better than a state government. It would be like demanding all highway maintenance is paid for by the federal government.

[N2NH]

As it should be. Supply and demand being what it is...

Remember. NYC uses less power than most cities. So, if we used more, you point would be valid.


No, they're not. It's NYS's power company. Niagara Power Authority, ran by appointees who live in NYC.

Again, write to the NPA. I may live here, but I have less pull with those people than they do.


This is not companies vs. private rates. NYC's rates are cheaper than they would be otherwise, because usage in NYC is subsidized by NYS, the the detriment of the people living in the region where it's generated...

If WNY could get the same power credits that NYC gets for the power we generate, our electric costs would be about 25% what they are today.


At 7 p.m. Monday, electricity in the Capital Region was going for $60.55 per megawatt-hour. New York City was paying $59.76, and the furthest west portions of New York were paying $41.03 for the same amount of electricity.

Electricity in the state is in a constant bidding process. Rates change based on supply and demand; when the demand is higher — starting in the early afternoon and continuing through the evening — the cost rises.

L I N K (http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2011/03/08/news/doc4d75ace622626259976825.txt?viewmode=fullstory)

This also disputes your allegations. I've posted some links to prove my point. Why don't you do the same? Otherwise, it's unsubstantiated.

Here is the map for today. New York City is paying $91.42 right now. WNY is paying $48.17. Hmmm...

4533



Fine. If all roads should be state financed, then that would work. But, as it is, you are complaining about local use roads not being subsidized by the entire state. It's akin to demanding NYC pays a share of road maintenance on Main St. in downtown Buffalo (Which, should in reality be paid entirely by the state, since it's NY5). That's ludicrous.

Nope. It's called living in the same state. Happens all the time, curiously enough. Let the cities get their budget from the state based on how much is generated in the city and how many live in the city. Interstates should be funded by a combination of federal and state funds. States should monitor their sections and do what is necessary to maintain them. Who will lose if an Interstate bridge collapses? The state and locality. It is a responsibility.

OTOH, your argument and that of other up-staters is one of the reasons that most of us here feel that we should secede from NYS. Since we were New York before you were, you can change your name. :lol:

[KC2UGV]

Remember. NYC uses less power than most cities. So, if we used more, you point would be valid.


NYC uses more electricity per square mile than anywhere else. Which requires more robust infrastructure.



Again, write to the NPA. I may live here, but I have less pull with those people than they do.


How much pull do you think WNY'ers have with a resident of NYC?



L I N K (http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2011/03/08/news/doc4d75ace622626259976825.txt?viewmode=fullstory)

This also disputes your allegations. I've posted some links to prove my point. Why don't you do the same? Otherwise, it's unsubstantiated.

Here is the map for today. New York City is paying $91.42 right now. WNY is paying $48.17. Hmmm...

4533


NYC is paying more, because their infrastructure has to support a heavier load. And yes, our electricity DOES cost less than yours, as it should. Since it's generated less than 75 miles away. For almost nothing (It's all hydro, with a smattering of coal).

Our rates would be 25% less than what they are now, if we were not sending cheap power credits to NYC. I'm not sure how you can not understand this.



Nope. It's called living in the same state. Happens all the time, curiously enough. Let the cities get their budget from the state based on how much is generated in the city and how many live in the city. Interstates should be funded by a combination of federal and state funds. States should monitor their sections and do what is necessary to maintain them. Who will lose if an Interstate bridge collapses? The state and locality. It is a responsibility.


If that's how it really happened, that would make sense. However, Buffalo (And WNY) supports itself, by and large. So does NYC, really for the most part. The issues come down when NYC (Or, WNY) cries that another region should cover their local-only (Like your bridge there) issues.

If you lose a bridge, very little effects me, if at all. There are several interstate bridges in the region, and not much comes my way from your direction.



OTOH, your argument and that of other up-staters is one of the reasons that most of us here feel that we should secede from NYS. Since we were New York before you were, you can change your name. :lol:

If your locale should decide it, I'd be all for it. We could take our old name "New Amsterdam".

[n2ize]

.



If that's how it really happened, that would make sense. However, Buffalo (And WNY) supports itself, by and large. So does NYC, really for the most part. The issues come down when NYC (Or, WNY) cries that another region should cover their local-only (Like your bridge there) issues.

If you lose a bridge, very little effects me, if at all. There are several interstate bridges in the region, and not much comes my way from your direction.



If your locale should decide it, I'd be all for it. We could take our old name "New Amsterdam".

Don't you feel its in the best interests of the state as a whole that no city or town has failing bridges or infrastructure ? That's why I support shared funding. If NYC's infrastructure fails it impacts me negatively. It Buffalo's infrastructure fails it negatively impacts me. Why ? Because I am a resident of the state. It is in my best interest that all of our cities and towns are being properly maintained. If some of my money has to go to help fund bridge repair in NYC and road repair in Buffalo that is fine with me.

[WØTKX]

All the hot women smoke...

http://blog.pappastax.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Ayn-Rand-001.jpg

[W3WN]

Don't you feel its in the best interests of the state as a whole that no city or town has failing bridges or infrastructure ? That's why I support shared funding. If NYC's infrastructure fails it impacts me negatively. It Buffalo's infrastructure fails it negatively impacts me. Why ? Because I am a resident of the state. It is in my best interest that all of our cities and towns are being properly maintained. If some of my money has to go to help fund bridge repair in NYC and road repair in Buffalo that is fine with me.The transit infrastructure (highways, bridges, tunnels, waterways, etc.) and maintenance thereof IS the responsibility of the state. That ought to be a "given."

If our states, and by extension the Federal government, would stick to their knitting, so to speak, and take care of what they are supposed to (infrasctructure, public safety, education to name a few) and not expand beyond that, we wouldn't have some of the budget issues, let alone high taxes, that we face now. But that's another story.

[KC2UGV]

Don't you feel its in the best interests of the state as a whole that no city or town has failing bridges or infrastructure ? That's why I support shared funding. If NYC's infrastructure fails it impacts me negatively. It Buffalo's infrastructure fails it negatively impacts me. Why ? Because I am a resident of the state. It is in my best interest that all of our cities and towns are being properly maintained. If some of my money has to go to help fund bridge repair in NYC and road repair in Buffalo that is fine with me.

To a point, yes, it is in the entire state's best interest that all the roads are well maintained. However, there comes a point when reality hits dreams.

It is not in the best interest of the entire state to bear the costs of a road only used by local residents. Case in point, while road improvements on Sheridan Dr. (NY 324) could somehow benefit the entire state, it's most benefit is directed to the local residents of the area.

I mean, I would love if NYS were to pay as a whole for all NY highways. Most of our major corridors are state highways, so it would free up much capital from us to have NYS policing all the state highways here (Which they don't), and to have NYS pay for all the maintenance here (Which they don't).

But, how much benefit is truly derived to NYC if NY265 (Military Rd. in WNY) is shouldered by the entire state? Little to none. Sure, there would be a little tangential benefit (Maybe a slight up tick in tourism), but does the state really understand where dollars need to be spent in Buffalo? Or, in NYC?

No, they don't. Which is why our system of government in the United States is "trickle down". Manage what needs to be managed at a particular level. NY324 is managed and funded by the locales that it traverses, and bridges in NYC are managed and paid for by users of those bridges.

I'm not all out anti-NYC; if it NYC were to break off into it's own state, NYS loses about 46% of it's population, and a much greater percentage (Don't recall) of the states GDP.

However, there does come a point where local residents need to shoulder the burdens of living where they choose. If NYC continues to rely on outside support for it's local infrastructure, population there will continue to climb, past the point of manageability. We can't keep cramming people into the same size space. The best way to communicate that to people is to make the costs of living there so high, people will spread out across the region.

In reality, I'm advocating something that would largely benefit NYC: With a less-dense population, road congestion, air quality, city life, et al will all improve.

But, we can't encourage that by continuing to subsidize living there.

[n2ize]

To a point, yes, it is in the entire state's best interest that all the roads are well maintained. However, there comes a point when reality hits dreams.

It is not in the best interest of the entire state to bear the costs of a road only used by local residents. Case in point, while road improvements on Sheridan Dr. (NY 324) could somehow benefit the entire state, it's most benefit is directed to the local residents of the area.

I mean, I would love if NYS were to pay as a whole for all NY highways. Most of our major corridors are state highways, so it would free up much capital from us to have NYS policing all the state highways here (Which they don't), and to have NYS pay for all the maintenance here (Which they don't).

But, how much benefit is truly derived to NYC if NY265 (Military Rd. in WNY) is shouldered by the entire state? Little to none. Sure, there would be a little tangential benefit (Maybe a slight up tick in tourism), but does the state really understand where dollars need to be spent in Buffalo? Or, in NYC?

No, they don't. Which is why our system of government in the United States is "trickle down". Manage what needs to be managed at a particular level. NY324 is managed and funded by the locales that it traverses, and bridges in NYC are managed and paid for by users of those bridges.

I'm not all out anti-NYC; if it NYC were to break off into it's own state, NYS loses about 46% of it's population, and a much greater percentage (Don't recall) of the states GDP.

However, there does come a point where local residents need to shoulder the burdens of living where they choose. If NYC continues to rely on outside support for it's local infrastructure, population there will continue to climb, past the point of manageability. We can't keep cramming people into the same size space. The best way to communicate that to people is to make the costs of living there so high, people will spread out across the region.

In reality, I'm advocating something that would largely benefit NYC: With a less-dense population, road congestion, air quality, city life, et al will all improve.

But, we can't encourage that by continuing to subsidize living there.

The population density of NYC will never change. It is to big a place. its too intense. it may vary slightly but the impact will not be great enough to reduce road and rail traffic to the point where the roads require less maintenance. Besides, The cost of living here is already extremely high and has been rising steadily and beyond the scope of what many can practically afford. NYC has already priced many of its former residents out of town. Case and point, Manhattan, over the last decade or two has pretty much gentrified most of it's low and middle income neighborhoods driving many of its former residents out of town. They could no longer afford to live in the gentrified versions of their neighborhoods and guess what ? The void was immediately filled by a wealthier set who can afford to live there. Whats worst, is if anything it has resulted in putting more strain on the roads and mass transit because now, many of those same people who once lived and worked in the city and could walk or take the subway to get to work now have to take to the roads, i.e. cars, buses, etc. to reach the same places they once reached on foot or by bike. And it even had a further detriment in that when these people were forced out (many of varying ethnic groups) it forced a lot of the fascinating cultural and ethnic components that made have NYC a unique and interesting place to visit. Now, we can go a step further and do what was done in Manhattan to Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx, namely pricing middle class and lower income people out of their neighborhoods and out of the city but all in all it would be a major loss , potentially turning some of those areas into a remnant of downtrodden places like Detroit or Camden NJ but on a larger scale and thus greatly reducing the robust GDP that the city generates and from which the entire state benefits. Or, the other and more likely effect would large scale gentrification forcing lower and middle income workers out of the city. But where do they go ? The outlying suburbs i.e. Westchester, Rockland, Nassau, etc. are already very crowded, extremely expensive and way over the price that many who would be forced to leave the city could practically afford. Their only other choice would be to go further out and their principal mode of transport would then be the roadways and bridges, essentially putting more people on the roads and requiring more road repairs.

I think we have to face the facts. Like it or hate it NYC is one of the biggest and most popular cities in the world. It has among the highest GDP of any city in the world. By the time you raise its already extremely high cost of living to the point where the population within all five boroughs starts to diminish sufficiently the rest of the state, and most likely the whole country will be in dire straits. We have already seen this on a smaller scale in which the cost to live in NYC has risen dramatically yet rather than seeing a decrease in population (i.e. a mass exodus) the city has grown and continues to grow. NYC real estate is not only very expensive, it is extremely desirable and it is in extremely high demand. This hold true not just for Manhattan but for the other boroughs as well. NYC has some of the largest ethnic populations and cultural centers in the country. Its just too big a place, maybe too big for its own good, but, at this juncture in time shrinking it down is not an option. As it stands for now the cost to maintain NYC is high and, like it or not, fair or unfair, some subsidies are going to be needed.

I am not trying to say that various counties in NY should put their needs on a back burner to NYC. Certainly if Buffalo has bridges or tunnels that need fixing that should be a priority for Buffalo and they shouldn't have to put a hold on fixing their bridges while paying to fix some bridge in Brooklyn that they will probably never see or use. And, as a resident of NY State I have no problems if a certain percentage of my money goes to help Buffalo fix its bridges. It may seem insignificant... why should I care less about some bridge in Buffalo ? But I see it as a cumulative effect.One single bridge ,may not matter much to me so, why should i care less ? But, multiply that bridge by numerous other bridges needing repair throughout the state i.e Albany, Schenectady, North Tonawanda, Grand island, Rochester, Troy, Buffalo, Yonkers, White Plains, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Staten Island, The Bronx, etc. and it adds up. As New Yorker's we should all be working together to keep our state functioning at its best, regardless of what part of it we live in.

That is why I consider shared funding and subsidies to be a reasonably policy in helping to keep the state running across the board. After all, I may not live in Buffalo but it is a part of my state. I could find myself living there tomorrow or a year from now.