NYS tolls and fees going DOWN?

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Yes, superceded by the highest in the nation here in NYC.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Yes, superceded by the highest in the nation here in NYC.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

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...

08-18-11 NYS Electrical Map.jpg

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.

[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

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...

08-18-11 NYS Electrical Map.jpg

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.

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...

[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.