 |
July 28, 2001 |
|||||
 To the RIOC Board: The Tram should remain open in the evening, late enough for people who have been to a movie, play etc with dinner after. If you closed the Tram at 1 am or at 1:30 am, it might be reasonable, but residents need to have the option of going to Second or Third Ave for a movie, or having dinner out - without having to take a cab home. And taking the subway after an expensive evening out, is an unpleasant option. You say the problem is low ridership. Residents would love to take the Tram more. And tourists should be flocking to use it. So what's the problem? RIOC has to take two steps. 1) Get the Tram on the MetroCard and 2) Make the Tram a tourist attraction. I've heard your reasons for not adopting the Card. You need to develop a marketing strategy that will include both of the steps above. The Tram should be a major symbol of NYC, like the cable cars are to SF. I wouldn't dream of spending a day in San Fran without a ride on a cable car.. And by the way, cable car rides are included on the SF monthly pass, along with the BART and buses. (The only extra charge is for going to the East Bay by BART) The point is: SF must subsidize the cable cars. Why can't we work out a deal with NYC? I say again, the Tram should be a major, international tourist attraction. The upcoming Spidie movie is a good time to launch a media campaign. Yes, it will cost, but it has to be done. Unless, your goal is to shut down the Tram. And that is what most residents think is the ultimate RIOC goal. A very short-sighted strategy. May you be visited by the spirit of Al Weinstein tonight!! Sharon Bermon PS: You wouldn't have this problem if you would get your act together and adopt the MetroCard!!! I buy a $63 monthly pass and am angry because I can't use my pass on the Tram. I would take the Tram much more frequently if it wasn't so expensive. I know your arguments about the cost of the equipment to adopt the MetroCard. Do it anyway. You're going to have to eventually
To the RIOC Board: First of all, if RIOC is serious about getting a community response on the following issue, then RIOC needs to do more than put out notices on kiosks. If your intent is to get a response with meaningful statistics than you should do the work and make the effort to get one. Yet another of RIOC's continuing attempts to harass the residents of Roosevelt Island by threatening to close the Tram (for any shift) should be understood to be just that, a threat. Roosevelt Island's tram is the one guaranteed means of transportation for a large, concentrated population of elderly and disabled residents. This population includes those who live in our two chronic care hospitals who are mobil by wheelchair. The subway is not a viable form of transportation for this population because it is not Title 3-ADA compliant. Because of this special population the Tram, even after 10 p.m., must be accessible to anyone who is disabled in one way or another. Is this RIOC's way of saying that if one is confined to a wheelchair or if one is elderly, one should not plan to go out with family or friends if one cannot plan to take the subway or a cab after 10 p.m.? Only those who have easily accessible forms of transportation, who don't live in this community and are not living on a fixed income could possibly utter such nonsense. Every other mass transit system in this country has subsidies from federal and state governments. RIOC and the Board that oversees RIOC, all know our own MTA receives such funding. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not going after that funding for this universally recognized icon of New York City and New York State. We on Roosevelt Island are in constant wonderment as to why this organization with the misnomer "operating" corporation is so incapable and unprofessional at operating, i.e. locating funding for this public means of transportation, let alone protecting our mandated public parks, a whole other kettle of fish. The tram, owned by RIOC, should have RIOC's and the State's experts out looking for the money's required to keep this entity running and repaired. This effort should be commensurate with the international reputation Manhattan holds in the country, let alone internationally. Any attempt to close our tram (for any or all shifts) will be a sad and unnecessary embarrassment to Governor Pataki, showing a shameful and blatant display of insensitivity by the Operating Corporation, and it will be an illegal act. And don't think for one minute these residents will let this go by quietly. Sherie Helstien
To the RIOC Board: I am responding to a flyer on a Main Street kiosk requesting residents to provide input on the question of shortening Tram hours. Many of my neighbors have not seen these flyers, and I would encourage you to make this request for information more widely known. Having attended your last Board meeting, I am familiar with the financials that CFO Pat Siconolfi presented regarding ridership vs costs. However, the requirements of Title III of the ADA seem to make this debate moot, given that the subway system, including our own Roosevelt Island station, are not disabled-compliant. This segment of our population, which includes non-wheelchair-bound seniors, must be served, and I am opposed to eliminating the Tram's third shift. I expect that every public transit system in the United States, especially those which are 24-hour-a-day systems (unlike the Tram) has periods of low usage with high per-rider costs. However, every public transit system in the United States, with the exception of our commuter Tramway, is subsidized to some extent by government. We should be entitled to the same support that the subways and buses and LIRR and New York Central receive as a matter of course. RIOC should be required to demand subsidies that, at the very least, cover the costs of the third shift and, at best, cover the Tram's entire deficit. Why does Roosevelt Island always fall through the cracks when City or State support of public facilities and infrastructure is involved? Matthew M. Katz
To the RIOC Board: The Public Notice to residents of Roosevelt Island seeking comments on your proposal to discontinue the third shift of Tramway operations is a further indication to the Island's residents of Mr. Ryan's and the Board's total insensitivity and lack of any real understanding of this community and the people who live here. What makes Roosevelt Island so very special is the composition of its people, a total social/economic mixture, with a heavy proportion of disabled, elderly, and hospital patients, most of whom were originally drawn here by the Tram and a safe place to live. The Tram is uniquely accessible and in no way are the subway or buses that serve Roosevelt Island a substitute or replacement for the Tram. The Tram is still the magnet - and if you are not aware, our subway station platform does not conform with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That is, there is a _-inch spacing between the platform and the subway car, as well as _-inch elevation difference, making it impossible for a person in a wheelchair to get on and off. The Tram is still the only answer. Reduction of Tram service will place a curfew and a great life-style limitation on many of our residents, especially the disabled and the seniors, as well as many others. What is really hypocritically dishonest is Mr. Ryan's and the Board's failure to seek a transportation subsidy for the Tram and Minibus service, which is at the heart of this Island's life style. Every other community is subsidized, but not Roosevelt Island. The Board's and Ryan's behavior with regard to the Tram and our residents is the same apparent attitude that is leading to the decay of our infrastructure, services, Blackwell House, the Chapel, etc. If the Board really attempts this very foolish and inconsiderate diminution of service, then the Island's residents should create a strong political and legal reprisal. Don't you dare touch our Tram! Ronald T. and Fay Vass
To the RIOC Board: The proposal to discontinue the third shift of the Tram appears inadvisable for three reasons: Economics: The notice itself does not substantiate the proposition that the lack of ridership on the third shift causes an annual loss of $6.45 per rider or a total of $635,100. This implies a ridership of 98,465 so, if one adds back the implied income of $147,700, the incremental cost of the 10:00 p.m.-3:30 a.m. shift becomes $780,000, which would appear to be more than twice the incremental cost of attendants and electricity (which is all that would be saved). The true annual loss resulting from the third shift becomes about $200,000 instead of $635,000, if actual savings (as opposed to prorated loaded costs benefiting the other two shifts) are, say, $350,000, and the present income is about $150,000. As mentioned above, no details were presented in the request for comments. Southtown: The figure of $200,000 does not reflect any expectation of increased ridership from the tenants in Southtown who are likely to be younger than the average current population of Roosevelt Island and therefore likely to cause a disproportionate increase in evening ridership. The figure may be further reduced by contributions from the developers of both Manhattan Park and Southtown, who will not welcome a reduction in the transportation services after marketing their properties with emphasis on their proximity and convenient commute to Manhattan. There is also the future vision of a possible Marriott geared towards tourists, who are not likely to be back by 10:00 at night. The Elderly: The remaining shortfall, if any, should be considered a social cost for the number of elderly and/or handicapped people living in the "original" buildings on Roosevelt Island - those who do not feel comfortable using the subway late at night and whose economic situation does not allow them to travel by taxi. Thank you for giving the above factors proper weight in your further deliberations. M. J. Petersen
To the RIOC Board: Thank you for the opportunity to write to you on this critical issue. I am unalterably opposed to discontinuing the third shift of the Tram. I often use it late at night and so do my guests. May I redirect your thinking?
Ethel Romm
To the RIOC Board: The suggestion that the Tram should be shut down after 10:00 p.m. is so ridiculous that it leads me to believe that RIOC does not have faith in Southtown. Tram ridership will increase when our only alternative is an overcrowded F train. The addition of Southtown residents would also increase peak-hour riders. This should balance the lighter late-night shift. I will not ride the subway at night. The 63rd Street station and the Roosevelt Island stations are too dangerous. If I have to take a cab, I might as well move back to Queens. Can there be rent parity between Southtown, Manhattan Park and Astoria? And finally, RIOC presents this proposal when many Islanders are on vacation. That is just sleazy. Susan Sinisi
To the RIOC Board: This past Fourth of July I had the opportunity of hearing a reading of our Declaration of Independence, which was telecast on ABC. As I listened, I was struck by the similarity of the conditions in the colonies in the 1770's with the situation we are now faced with on Roosevelt Island. It is almost laughable that you are asking for comments [regarding the Tramway third shift]. When have you ever cared about them before? If the Tram is losing $600,000, I would suggest you ask Governor Pataki for the money. Before we were "blessed" with him, Dr. Blue, and Mr. Ryan, we were getting money from the State. Now we have what the early colonists had - taxation without representation. Maybe we should stage our own Boston Tea Party, but instead of tea, we could throw RIOC in the East River! Closing the Tram at 10:00 p.m. would create a hardship for those returning from the City after that time. The 63rd Street subway station is a scary place at night and forcing residents to take cabs is costly. Perhaps there would be enough funds for everything if the Island were run more efficiently. In the meantime, just ask "King George." Louise Maniloff
| ||||||
