Northeast - Toll for cyclists over NYC East River Crossing ?.

WTF ?.

Are they nuts ?.

OK, fifty cents isn't a lot, but given the number of cyclists using the bridges, it also doesn't add up to any real money that's going to actually be useful in terms of maintenance.

As well, WHY ?.

The concept of charging for cars heading into Manhatten is to discourage private cars from going into Manhatten. This is mostly a pollution as much a congestion issue and I agree with the concept. It's done in many European cities and is successful in any number of ways.

But charging cyclists seemingly discourages commuting by bike, when what you want to be doing is encouraging using a bike, so what are they thinking ?.

The only thought I had was to show motorists that they are spreading the pain. But bikes don't pollute and hardly cause congestion.

How damned dumb is this ?

SB

Pretty damned dumb, but when years of reckless spending dry up the pot, those who let it all go awry become desperate for a fix.

Dumb. Many years ago, cyclists used to have to pay the toll to cross a couple of the bridges on Ocean Drive in south jersey, such as the one connecting Ocean City with Strathmere/Sea Isle City. However, those bridges were manned, operating drawbridges, so there was a cost that "benefited" both cars and autos. The first time I tried to cross one I had no idea bikes had to pay the toll. I didn't have any cash on me to pay the $0.50 toll. Despite assuring the bridge operator that I would pay double on my way back, I was turned away and forced to ride back several miles to find an ATM.

The requirement that bikes pay the tolls was eventually done away with.

http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-new-york/proposed-east-river-bridge-tolls-to-include-bicyclists

Is it this Sam? http://www.samschwartz.com/

He probably wants to engineer the toll lane and make money for his firm.

I think the idea came from here; http://benepesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/bbbs-50-cent-bridge-toll-revived-by.html
There is a logic to it but I' not sure it would actually be cost effective.

They should pay bikers for cutting down on emissions and traffic, not charging. I agree that this is a highly stupid idea. Unfortunately money overrides common sense most of the time.

I would pay the 50 cents to cross the Goethals bridge! Heck, I would pay the car toll of $12.00 dollars to cross the Goethals bridge! I called several cab services and they all want over $40.00 dollars to take m bicycle over the Goethals. As a result, I have to ride over and take Path into Newark and ride over to Elizabeth. A two hour trip just to not have to shell out for cab service.

I think the idea came from here; http://benepesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/bbbs-50-cent-bridge-toll-revived-by.html
There is a logic to it but I' not sure it would actually be cost effective.

Benepe's post is actually about the George Washington Bridge which is an interstate crossing and comes under the Port Authority. Some people had the misguided notion that if cyclists were to pay tolls PA might restore 24/7 access and improved ramps for cyclists and pedestrians - not that a toll hike has ever done much for motorists.

Of course one major difference between the GWB and most East River crossings is that cyclists travel on the same grade as some cars so charging a toll might be as simple as extending the existing toll booths. On the other hand, most East river crossings would require considerably more construction to either bring bike paths closer to any future toll booths or constructing additional toll booths specifically for cyclists. Then they'd either have to sort out the cyclists to determine who to charge or just toll everyone. That could easily be more trouble than it's worth on places like the Brooklyn Bridge where space is already at a primium.

What I feel Grudlock Sam really overlooks is that cyclists make the city safer in general. For every story about someone getting hit by a bike there are probably a dozen or more incidents where cyclists have assisted in accidents or called 911. Just the presence of more people on a bridge , or elsewhere really does make everyone feel safer. Charge a toll on East River Bridges and well see fewer people up there at night or in the middle of winter. How many pedestrians will feel comfortable on a deserted bridge path?

The GW south path on to the bridge is a joke and could be improved if the PA wanted to. I think it could be consider negligence and I would sue the PA if I was inured. One thing is for sure they have the car lane narrowing to singel traffic lane for both direction of travel.