Sections

March 3, 2009 / Brooklyn news / Marty vs. Tolls

In any language, Marty says ‘¡No!’ on tolls

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

After a weekend spent mostly on the sidelines of the battle against tolls on the East River bridges, Borough President Markowitz went bilingual today to show his disgust for a fee on drivers.

In an op-ed published on Tuesday in the Spanish-language daily, El Diario, Markowitz firmly declared, “¡Peaje a los puentes — decimos que no!”

The op-ed served as Markowitz’s sole public statement on bridge tolls today, according to the Beep’s office.

Here’s the full text of Markowitz’s piece:

Bridge tolls — We say no!

Frankly, it’s unbelievable that East River and Harlem River bridge tolls are still on the table. After many public hearings and so many alternative funding proposals, how is it possible that the MTA is still looking to bridge tolls to solve its fiscal problems?

Simply put, East River and Harlem River bridge tolls unfairly burden commuters in boroughs outside Manhattan who are already underserved by public transit. Fully 65 percent of these tolls would come from residents in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx.

How is this fair? As El Diario readers know, and as Rosie Perez said when she called in to agree with me on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer radio show, many Brooklynites live in areas like Red Hook and Bushwick, underserved by subways and busses, and rely on cars for their livelihoods.

Insultingly, these tolls will disproportionately harm those affected by proposed transit service cuts [such as] those along the J/M/Z corridor who may lose the Z train, or those in Red Hook who will have no connecting route from Jay Street if the MTA cuts the B75 bus.

Furthermore, tolling unfairly burdens the elderly and disabled who can’t use mass transit. These residents are not rich — many live on fixed incomes and have high medical costs.

And make no mistake; this latest proposal to limit the toll to $2 (the cost of a subway ride) is nothing more than an illusion. What they’re not telling you is that it will be $2 this year — next year it could be $4.

Every time the MTA gets itself into fiscal trouble, they’ll think about raising this toll.

It’s been nine months since the Ravitch Commission, yet I still have no faith that the legislature or the MTA are considering innovative and fair revenue sources like the following:

• Issue a modest increase to the existing state gasoline tax for the entire metropolitan region, solely dedicated to MTA projects.

• Reinstate the commuter tax, which could bring in $1 billion.

• Increase car registration fees, and impose the current city registration surcharge on all registrations throughout the MTA region.

• Link registration fees to car model and weight, as Comptroller William Thompson has suggested.

• Dedicate a new “Mega-Millions” lottery to mass transit

• And finally, consolidate MTA assets. The MTA owns an estimated 14,000 properties, worth more than $1 billion. One is the transit building above the Jay-Street/Borough Hall station in Downtown Brooklyn, vacant for a decade and covered in scaffolding and litter. They could sell it, save over $150 million in repairs, and generate $50 million.

Instead, they do nothing. How can the MTA threaten cuts and bridge tolls when they have valuable properties that they let languish?

They may call it a toll, but we call it a discriminatory tax. The MTA needs to find a solution that does not punish the residents of the boroughs outside Manhattan, and ensures the responsibility is shared by the entire MTA region.

Editor’s note: The MTA does not own the building to which Markowitz refers.

Updated 5:11 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:


Reasonable discourse

Pat from Bay Ridge says:
Well, he has one point: the percentage of Brooklynites who throw their money away on the lottery is probably higher that the percentage who own a car, let alone drive it into Manhattan. Although both are a tax on stupid if you ask me.
March 4, 2009, 1:59 am
Jabir Ibn Hayyan from Park Slope says:
In other words, what Marty's saying is, we need to make it as easy and as cheap as possible for the minority of car owners to drive around our borough, even at the expense of the majority of us who don't own cars and rely solely on public transit.

And the easier and cheaper we make it for them, the better off we all are.
March 4, 2009, 11:45 am
Eliot from Concord Village, Downtown Brooklyn says:
Marty is a clown.

The vast majority of New Yorkers commute by subway and bus, and we're facing massive fare hikes!

Why am I expected to pay $3 to take the subway but the 5% of car commuters get a free ride? They can't pay $2 to cross the bridge?

Pricing driving appropriately would also relieve congestion -- and pollution -- in Downtown Brooklyn.

If Marty can't see all the benefits of tolls for his constituents, it's time for him to go. Good riddance to a bad joke.
March 4, 2009, 12:43 pm
Boris from Bay Ridge says:
I've heard him speak a couple of times. He never has any good ideas about anything. Brooklyn, one of the largest cities in America (if taken alone) is really just an appendage to Manhattan; it is second best in everything. Clinging to old cars-over-people ideas does nothing to improve Brooklyn. It's time for Marty to step down.
March 4, 2009, 11:13 pm
al pankin from downtown says:
Marty is right on all issues..maybe they should put it to the voters to decide how they want to pay for mass transit. why should legislators from areas out of the region decide the fate of the downstate region.
what has the mta done to reduce costs and their wastefull methods of doing business? it's easy to charge more to the taxpayers.
March 5, 2009, 7:47 am
lasi from anglisht shqip says:
sadasdasasd
April 13, 2009, 3:39 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: