« Tuesday Links Behold 'Sunset Marketplace,' Time Equities' S. Park Plan »
April 8, 2008
Congestion Pricing Defeat a Win for the Boroughs?
The Times is describing the death of congestion pricing behind closed doors in Albany yesterday as something of a victory for Brooklyn and Queens, since the plan "was strongly opposed by a broad array of politicians from Queens, Brooklyn and New York’s suburbs, who viewed the proposed congestion fee as a regressive measure that overwhelmingly benefited affluent Manhattanites." Brooklyn City Councilmembers were clearly divided on the issue: Last week nine voted against the measure and seven voted for it. It remains to be seen now whether the residential parking permits initiative, which was contingent upon congestion pricing legislation passing, is also dead for the foreseeable future. Whether or not the defeat was a win for Brooklyn and the other boroughs, it was obviously a bruising loss for Mayor Mike. The mayor issued a statement that says, in part: "Today is a sad day for New Yorkers and a sad day for New York City. Not only won't we see the realization of a plan that would have cut traffic, spurred our economy, reduced pollution and improved public health, we will also lose out on nearly $500 million annually for mass transit improvements and $354 million in immediate federal funds...It takes true leadership and courage to embrace new concepts and ideas and to be willing to try something. Unfortunately, both are lacking in the Assembly today. If that wasn't shameful enough, it takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience– on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year." Most of the dailies have stories about how Bloomberg played a hand in the bill's defeat by using hardball tactics with legislators. The Times notes that "many opponents said they resented the pressure and threats that they said emanated from Mr. Bloomberg’s side, including hints that the mayor would back primary candidates to run against politicians who opposed congestion pricing."
$8 Traffic Fee for Manhattan Gets Nowhere [NY Times]
It’s (Apparently) Official: Congestion Pricing Is Dead [Streetsblog]
Bloomberg Unleashes Fury as Silver Halts Congestion Pricing [NY Daily News]
Mayor's Duck Is Looking A Bit Lame [NY Sun]
Nine Bklyn Councilmembers Vote Against Congest Fee [Brownstoner]
Mayor Rolls Out Resident Parking Permit Proposal [Brownstoner]
Photo by neysapranger.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4469
Comments
Worthy objectives but many problems with plan and very obnoxious tactics by Bloomberg.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:20 AM
Go mayor, this makes me so embarrassed to be an American. So many world cities support something like this but we can never seem to embrace a larger perspective. This small event does not bode well for the presidential elections.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:25 AM
Congestion pricing wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better than the status quo. In addition to the proponents' arrogance and bullying, describing it as a cash cow for the MTA was a mistake.
Unfortunately, people are justified in having no faith in the MTA's ability to spend the money wisely. Anyone who has followed the mess at Fulton Street in lower Manhattan would be reluctant to trust these guys with anything.
They would have been better off saying that for your $8 you get faster, less congested traffic, and that the time you save not being stuck in traffic is probably worth at least that much.
Posted by: Flatbushwhacker at April 8, 2008 9:26 AM
Go mayor, this makes me so embarrassed to be an American. So many world cities support something like this but we can never seem to embrace a larger perspective. This small event does not bode well for the presidential elections.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:26 AM
I think that congestion pricing was just a brilliant new name for East River tolls. It has nothing to do with the environment and evrything to do with money. The money was supposedly going to the MTA, which is an agency that is supremely inefficient with money. In fact, I have the suspicion that the more money they get, the less they actually accomplish.
My other issue is that traffic is the lifeblood of the city. if you don't like traffic you don't belong in a bustling city. You want wide open downtown streets? Move to Bufallo, or Detroit, or Camden.
Another thing is that the system proposed for photographing license plates and the bureaucracy it will necessitate will be very expensive. In fact, in London the money from the tolls by and large go to supporting the toll system, the real money comes from the penalties imposed on commuters who forget to pay on line or are tardy paying.
I don't think I could live with that, even though I rarely if ever drive into Manhattan.
To me, driving into Manhattan is like having a tooth pulled. You do it when you have no choice like when you are taking a child or an elderly person to see a specialist or you drive them home from a procedure or chemo etc. People do not go into Manhattan for the joy of driving. The environementalists I think would be far happier living in a woodsier, poorer city. Havana comes to mind, and pyongyang is probably heaven on earth in terms of no traffic congestion.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:28 AM
It was a simple question - who should pay more to improve mass transit - and given congestion, global warming, demographics and air quality - it should have been an easy answer - auto drivers between 6-6 M-F.
BUT slimy, corrupt, sleazy, back-room kingpins, like Shelly Silver and the lemmings that follow him caved like the cheap suits they are.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:28 AM
Of course its about money 9:28 - EVERYTHING is about $. So if you are against this, then the follow-up question is simple -
Who should pay more to support mass transit in NYC - please be specific.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:30 AM
It was a simple question - who should pay more to improve mass transit - and given congestion, global warming, demographics and air quality - it should have been an easy answer - auto drivers between 6-6 M-F.
BUT slimy, corrupt, sleazy, back-room kingpins, like Shelly Silver and the lemmings that follow him caved like the cheap suits they are.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:31 AM
9:28, "If you don't like traffic you don't belong in a bustling city." I don't see why one cannot enjoy living in a city and support initiatives that benefit the environment. I put up with traffic because I love the city. I would just rather have it bustle more with walkers, bikers, rollerbladers, joggers, etc.
And I don't buy the argument that just because the MTA will undoubtedly not make the most efficient and effective use of the money that the initiative should be trashed. Frankly, I would rather have congestion pricing implemented even if it meant dumping all the money raised in the East River if it meant people would be encouraged to walk, cycle and take public transportation more often. Further, I don't care if the real money "comes from the penalties imposed on commuters who forget to pay on line or are tardy paying". Next time remember to pay.
Posted by: Biff Champion at April 8, 2008 9:40 AM
Bloomberg can still eliminate 90% of NYC employees parking permits without Albany - and all the stats I read showed that they were the most likely to drive to work.
I also hope that the move to make yellow cabs hybrid vehicles doesn't stop. BUT - should ALSO include all those damned SUV and Lincoln limos that clog midtown.
I would have been for the plan if it tried to discourage cab and limo usage - but since it didn't the whole idea same too elitist.
(and I think that residenital parking permit plan probably turned more people off than they expected).
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:41 AM
9:28. As a "guest" for all we know you are just stopping in on your way from Pyongyang. I hardly think a desire to make owning and driving a car in NYC more expensive warrants banishment to Buffalo! Obviously the Mayor could have played his hand better - but then the dysfuncution of the NYS legislature is legendary.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at April 8, 2008 9:46 AM
expensive tolls on the Verazzano Bridge,the George Washington Bridge, and Queensboro Bridge, not to mention the tunnels, have not done anything to free up traffic on those arteries. What makes anyone think that tolls on the free east river bridges will ease congestion? People seem almost irrational on this issue, Biff is the perfect example. throw the money into the river? So the point is just to be punitive to fellow citizens? That's bad karma Biff.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:46 AM
According to the last official statement issued by the MTA for its 2008A & B Transportation Revenue Bonds, the fares collected from the Transit System in 2007 were $2,778 billion and expenses were $4,788 billion. So I'd be careful of asking who should pay to improve mass transit, because its clear that the State is subsidizing this system tremendously.
Fortunately, the auto lobby never truly got behind this issue because otherwise we'd all be paying $10 to ride the subways.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:50 AM
9:46 #2, if you were rational, you would appreciate my argument was one of extremes. Of course I would rather put the money towards improving the MTA, fighting AIDS, giving shelter to stray puppies, etc. My point is that I think it is punitive to fellow citizens and bad karma to suggest the initiative is a bad one because the MTA will use the money raised ineffectively. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.
Posted by: Biff Champion at April 8, 2008 9:52 AM
I dont understand why people are so thick headed:
Of course it is an elitist plan - if you filthy rich you will likely still drive into Manhattan or take limos etc......THAT THE POINT.
I thought everyone loves to tax the rich??? Right now the rich, and/or frivolous drive into Manhattan and pollute the air, congest the streets, and annoy our ears and mass transit riders get little to nothing out of it - even if the plan reduced congestion by ZERO, at least then the mass transit riding public would have a steady source of $ in which to fund mass transit improvements. If it reduces pollution and congestion (which it undoubtably will do) thats only a bonus.
As for parking permits - talk to anyone associated with city government and nypd - Bloomberg has SEVERELY restricted their issuances this year - personally I hope he pays back all these morons by handing them out like cotton candy now.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:54 AM
I agree that if one wants to live in a world city one has to accept traffic as part of the bargain. Have you ever driven in Paris? in Tokyo? in Hong Kong? it makes NY traffic look mild by comparison.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2008 9:54 AM
Comments like those from 9.28 ("makes me embarassed to be an American") and Biff Champion's ("I would rather have congestion pricing implemented even if it meant dumping all the money raised in the East River ") demonstrate why this plan went down to defeat. It seems that the proponents wanted to "make a statement" to prove their green credentials, at the expense of a class of fellow citizens they deemed villianous.
If Mayor Bloomberg was interested in reducing congestion and air pollution, why didn't he start with some obvious steps?
a) enforce the laws against double-parking, which is within his control - no trips to the legislature necessary;
b) end the archaic practice of yellow cabs cruising the streets in search of fares. This would be accomplished by the use of taxi stands.
Folks saw this for what it was: a stealth tax increase, at a time when NY's economy is reeling. Moreover, stating that it would be given directly to the MTA was the final kiss of death. Contrary to what some folks on these posts might think, people aren't stupid. They can see with their own eyes how this agency manages the money already provided to them.
Benson.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:02 AM
Once again, those yahoo bumpkins in Albany have screwed the City.
Secede NOW!!!!
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:04 AM
Bloomberg should definitely pull all the city parking permits. The people objecting to the $8 fee and complaining that this is an elitist plan aren't paying the $400 and up parking fees in manhattan. They are driving in for free, parking for free, and if they are cops, they are parking all over the freakin' sidewalk when they get here.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:04 AM
Ha ha! Now the Mayor knows what it is like to fight for something and not get his way, again. His plan was a NIMBY plan if ever there was. It was not about the environment, it was about making more money for the corrupt MTA, and the other greedy fat cats of NYC.
Sniff Sniff Mayor Bloomberg!!
The MTA still can't even figure out how to make clear announcements! They need more money for that??
If he cares about the environment, get more recycling bins around, get electric buses, the possibilities are endless, that don't require $8 tolls!
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:05 AM
Ha ha! Now the Mayor knows what it is like to fight for something and not get his way, again. His plan was a NIMBY plan if ever there was. It was not about the environment, it was about making more money for the corrupt MTA, and the other greedy fat cats of NYC.
Sniff Sniff Mayor Bloomberg!!
The MTA still can't even figure out how to make clear announcements! They need more money for that??
If he cares about the environment, get more recycling bins around, get electric buses, the possibilities are endless, that don't require $8 tolls!
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:07 AM
Just another regressive tax that the city does not need. Good riddance.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:09 AM
I think if you appear on Housewives of New York you should be taxed for breathing.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:12 AM
The congestion pricing plan as proposed had too many defects. The biggest problem is that it would have most likely had a negative affect on the surrounding areas, increasing traffic and parking. Basically shifting congestion from one area to another.
That's why I found the Bloomberg argument that it would decrease pollution to be disingenuous. The areas where you have the highest levels of childhood asthma are in upper Manhattan and along the main thouroughfares in Brooklyn and Queens. There was no study that showed that the plan would help reduce traffic in those areas. Actually, it would seem more likely that the plan would increase these health hazards in the areas surrounding the pricing zone.
If anything, first you create residential parking and you make sure you limit the creation of huge parking lots in residential areas, then you can consider creating a pricing zone in Manhattan.
Congestion pricing could work, but it has to be done in a way that would benefit all New Yorkers.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:15 AM
The congestion pricing plan as proposed had too many defects. The biggest problem is that it would have most likely had a negative affect on the surrounding areas, increasing traffic and parking. Basically shifting congestion from one area to another.
That's why I found the Bloomberg argument that it would decrease pollution to be disingenuous. The areas where you have the highest levels of childhood asthma are in upper Manhattan and along the main thouroughfares in Brooklyn and Queens. There was no study that showed that the plan would help reduce traffic in those areas. Actually, it would seem more likely that the plan would increase these health hazards in the areas surrounding the pricing zone.
If anything, first you create residential parking and you make sure you limit the creation of huge parking lots in residential areas, then you can consider creating a pricing zone in Manhattan.
Congestion pricing could work, but it has to be done in a way that would benefit all New Yorkers.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:16 AM
10:07, 10:09 and like-minded posters - it is you who has the NIMBY mindset not Mayor Bloomberg - you want something (improved mass transit, better air quality and reduced congestion) BUT you want someone else to pay for it (i.e. not you)
Typical entitled mindset that is destroying this country.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:17 AM
it is not a victory for brooklyn. I live in brooklyn and most people in brooklyn that i know take the subway everyday to work. it makes me sad to think that our brooklyn reps had a hand in defeating this proposal.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:17 AM
The congestion pricing plan as proposed had too many defects. The biggest problem is that it would have most likely had a negative affect on the surrounding areas, increasing traffic and parking. Basically shifting congestion from one area to another.
That's why I found the Bloomberg argument that it would decrease pollution to be disingenuous. The areas where you have the highest levels of childhood asthma are in upper Manhattan and along the main thouroughfares in Brooklyn and Queens. There was no study that showed that the plan would help reduce traffic in those areas. Actually, it would seem more likely that the plan would increase these health hazards in the areas surrounding the pricing zone.
If anything, first you create residential parking and you make sure you limit the creation of huge parking lots in residential areas, then you can consider creating a pricing zone in Manhattan.
Congestion pricing could work, but it has to be done in a way that would benefit all New Yorkers.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:17 AM
its amazing to see you guys jump all over CP like it was the second coming of hippie jesus.
Mayor proposses tolls on east river bridges, calls it "good for the environment" and all of a sudden its the story of whats wrong with the US?
Seriously.. tolls have had next to zero effect on traffic on the GW, VZ, Tri, Tap, or otherwise. All they do is make living in NY even MORE expensive and Elitist.
Oh yea sure, guy who lives in manhatten, park slope, williamsburg.. who doesnt own a car at all and doesn't care who has to foot the bill so long as its "green" and will reduce the "evil cars" on the street feels fine.
But anyone with an ounce of sense should realize this is just a way to further our police/nanny state progression towards fascism (and/or communism). Sound over-board? So then, a poposal that limits the freedom of the lower classes, taxes them more heavily, institutes universal surveillance with unlimited data retention on "free" citizens, and drag-net punishes/fines violators by INTENTIONALLY NOT placing accessible toll booths prior to point of entry is ok?
I would be ASHAMED of an america that has forgotten its supposed rights and freedoms and history so much as to pass this not so hidden agenda.
If you want to go green... and to force/encourage others to do so as well... institute tax breaks on hybrids (or even just all-electrics), install fully separated bike and bus lanes, Give a tax rebates based on carbon use (high MPG car owners get more back, non car owners get even more)... reduce the subway fare... etc... Require all fleet vehicles (state, trucking, cabs, rentals, etc...) to have a high MPG or to be hybrids, etc...), institute a fair tax on high energy users (hummers, etc...).
The problem with CP is it doesn't really fix anything, it just charges people with little choice in the first place more and restricts everyone in the process... on top of justifying another step towards a police state and loss of liberty.
just FYI, i do not own a car, i never have, im strongly against foreign oil, and hugely support/wish we could go all-electric ASAP. I rent a car once every two months if i need go anywhere... and even still i see CP as entirely wrong. People who believe that they should just levy a tax on OTHERS (since they rarely belong to said group) should read their US history a bit more.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:19 AM
Well, OK, 10:15 guest, but an existing plan could be modified. Now we ain't got NOTHING. And as long as NY State is run by a bunch of ignorant cronies, nothing is all we're going to get. Why do those idiots get a say in this, anyway?
At the risk of seeming like an old fogie, Manhattan used to be a lovely, walkable city. It's become really unpleasant. Much of what has made this place so magical is disappearing in a puff of car exhaust.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:21 AM
I think our first commenter, 9:20 said it well.
One thing people forget, most especially a super rich guy like Bloomberg, as well as everyone here, is that the implementation of the plan had some big flaws, and those flaws would have stuck it to those who can least afford it, as usual, and not just in the fees themselves.
If the idea was to scan the plates and then charge people, did it ever occur to anyone that many drivers don't have a credit card, or even a bank account to charge the fee to? Not to mention a computer to go on line and pay. There is a vast population out there, which includes many of those hard working people with vans, cars, and small trucks, who deliver everything from food to furniture, who may not be computer savvy, and who pay for everything either with cash or money orders.
To simply assume that everyone is operating on the same financial and technological level is arrogant and just wrong.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at April 8, 2008 10:30 AM
Can we secede from the state of New York, now, please?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:33 AM
10:19 "If you want to go green... reduce the subway fare... etc"
And how do you intend to pay for that? (or any of your other proposal) Which non-regressive tax do you propose?
Would it be" institute a fair tax on high energy users (hummers, etc...)?"
Because those types of taxes (either gas or even on large vehicles) are the most regressive of all.
Ultimately it comes down to WHO PAYS AND HOW?
Seems to me that drivers into Manhattan M-F 6-6 are about the best people to tax to help pay for enviromental/mass transit issues - how do you disagree - if not them then WHO?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:36 AM
This is what you get when you live in a major city!! Why is that so hard to understand. There is going to be car traffic, people traffic, everything. Just deal with it or pack up and head back to Mississippi. If I am driving into the city, I expect there to be a lot of traffic and it will take me a while to get whereever I am going. If I am in a rush, take the train. Whatever, this is city life people!!!
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:36 AM
the hard working people with vans were the first to get down with EZ Pass. people aren't dumb.
they've made this work in all sorts of cities. London has more immigrants drivers than NY. This wasn't rocket science.
This was about Albany vs NYC again. How DOES Silver stay in office?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:36 AM
10:02, thanks for also missing (or at least not focussing) once again on my point. Actually, I prefer my fellow citizens, whom I do not deem villianous, do not suffer. Sorry you so wrongly misread me.
I support initiatives that will benefit future generations and am willing to sacrifice for them. I don't need a gas guzzling car to get from point A to point B. I'm not demonizing drivers. But if I or anyone else has to pay more for the right to drive versus a more environmentally friendly mode of transportation, I'm willing to do that and wish others would as well. Maybe the current CP plan was flawed, but I would not totally dismiss the concept.
I do appreciate additional suggestions you have, as well as some of the excellent ideas by other anti-CP posters like 10:19.
Posted by: Biff Champion at April 8, 2008 10:41 AM
You know what Montrose - if you dont have a bank account then I feel it is okay for the Government to say to you - you can't own a car. I mean give me a break, you are steering a 2 ton object down the street that is capable of killing dozens, you need to have it registered, insured and inspected - how many people can get meet those criteria that do not have a BANK ACCOUNT? - and if there are a handful - so what - with rights comes responsibilities.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:41 AM
10:19, give me a break. You ever ridden a bike around NYC? (Since you're so strongly against foreign oil, I imagine you must at least use your legs to get around). My experience as a bicyclist is the constant congestion at key areas, where cars literally idle while trying to get out of the city: Holland Tunnel, Queensboro, Midtown Tunnel, Will. Bridge, Manhattan Bridge. And check out those cars, will ya? What a fancy bunch of fat cats: Every other car's an SUV -- you've got your pick of Lexus, Benz etc. . . .
I can only imagine how congested it must be on the incoming side, in Jersey and Brooklyn and Queens.
Your statement that this proposal "limits the freedom of the lower classes" makes me gag, as I do every day on the fumes of the rich and spoilt.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:52 AM
wow 10:41. no love for anyone. Where are we living, the gov can tell you what to do because you dont have a bank account? WHAT?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:56 AM
If I have to pay to use the subway, drivers should have to pay to use the streets. Anyone that thinks this is a regressive tax needs to look up the word regressive.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:56 AM
10:52, actually YES i have ridden a bike in NYC... many many many times... i was a messenger for a while.
did you miss the part that said "fully seperated"? that means a barrier to give bikers a full lane without obstruction.
i know people like you like to believe most people driving in NY are rich fat cats who deserve to be taxed... your WRONG.
Of course your right, a proposal that causes the poor to be further economically restrained to their homes and or areas, costs them MORE to move about freely, and institutes a universal network of cameras to watch their movements doesnt "limit freedoms" at all.... sheesh.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 10:58 AM
10:36 you could put in for taxes in every conceivable place... if everyone wants less cars on the street and more green options then let everyone pay for it and thus reduce the burden to all, increase the city tax (based on income)... or real estate tax... increase a billion other forms of taxes.
Problem is everyone thinks charging manhatten drivers more WONT cost them anything, but all your food, services, item , and so forth will become more expensive... it just makes the city more expensive, and those costs come right back around. So lets not finance our improvements to the city by a measure that would ultimately turn NY into an even more oppressive place to live.
Also, if fully separated bike, bus, carpool and express bus lanes were put in place on ALL avenues (not terribly expensive at all), you'd see a huge spike in people taking public transport causing much less congestion & pollution which would give the MTA a huge jump in revenue (also allowing for a reduced fare or at least a flat one).
No matter how you slice it, CP doesnt FIX anything... it just charges people more while sneaking in a bunch of ugly consequences.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:01 AM
How about an eight dollar daily parking garage tax for those entering Manhattan parking garages between 5:00AM and 11:00AM, Monday to Friday? If that doesn't reduce traffic, raise it to twelve dollars or fifteen dollars.
The tax would go directly to mass transit (there would be fewer car owners paying the current 18%(?) garage tax, but those who continued to use the garages would more than offset any lost revenue).
This way, the small businessperson or delivery guy who needs to park on the street for ten minutes won't be hurt.
Sounds to easy. What am I missing?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:08 AM
11:01 says"10:36 you could put in for taxes in every conceivable place... if everyone wants less cars on the street and more green options then let everyone pay for it and thus reduce the burden to all, increase the city tax (based on income)... or real estate tax... increase a billion other forms of taxes."
Brilliant - so what you propose is that city residents pay more taxes and LI, Westchester and NJ drivers as well as those non-NYC residents who come into NY and use our mass-transit pay ZERO increase.
Doesnt taxing the people who are using an environmentally unsound and congestion causing form of transportation subsidize the preferred transportation method (mass transit) make more sense? (especially when you consider the relative wealth of those drivers)
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:17 AM
11:08 After some thinking, that sounds like a much much better way to address the issue, and certainly far less restrictive & oppressive than cameras everywhere...
I still have some reservations on how it would effect people who need to park their cars in the city... (but they are unquestionably much much less likely to be poor)...
I would also work to tie such taxes to fuela econmy rebates and/or fully segmented bike lanes / express bus lanes... etc... The MTA is just a money hole.
in any case, its an improvement of lightyears over CP
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:22 AM
11:17
1: the first problem is CP doesnt target bad drivers at all, it targets everyone and penalizes everyone, regardless of their choice of vehicle (all-electric?), purpose (services? deliveries? emergencies?), or otherwise.
2: We already have the means to tax out of state drivers, we already DO... CP is about putting a toll on CITY BRIDGES... or are you one of the manhetten elitists who think of brooklyn/queens/bronx/SI/Uptown as being "out of-state"?
3: i have consistently stated that there are many means by which we could encourage better vehicle choices... among them more DEDICATED lanes allocated to busses & bikes (carpools?, all-electrics?)
CP does NOTHING to FIX any of these problems, as you and i both desire... it just makes life more expensive AND oppresive in NYC.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:29 AM
11:08 - your missing the fact that your increasing the incentive to circle to find street parking - thereby increasing congestion, traffic, energy use and reducing the number of available street spots for the people you are trying to "help"
- If the small biz man and delivery guys need to get into manhattan - just come before 6am or after 6pm - then its free.
(How many into Manhattan deliveries you think are made in the middle of the day below 60th St?)
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:34 AM
I have to say I am not thrilled with the idea of paying the government for the privilige of using the public streets on the "Golden Isle". I agree that the kiss of death for the program was stating that the money would go to the MTA. To many of us that is like giving free booze to a drunk.
We need to think of real ways to improve the quality of air and the environment. May I suggest cleaner buses as a start? Some of those old buses spew out huge quanitites of black diesel smoke.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2008 11:41 AM
10:58 --
1. What does the part "fully separated bike lane" have anything to do with my point? I don't care about bike lanes or ensuring my personal safety; that's my responsibility and I don't need you or the city dictating how I'm supposed to be "protected" from traffic. I AM TRAFFIC. I care about ALL OF US not being forced to breathe the poison of a select few. Isn't fresh air a human right and freedom too? If you don't think so, move to China. Cause they're all about the freedom to pollute; is that to be considered a model of an unrepressive society?
2. i'm sure the poor are real grateful for your paranoid take on the Man and his attempt to control their poor hopeless selves; thank god they have you to defend them. But the reality -- dare I pop your conspiracy theory bubble -- is that most people polluting the streets of new york ARE RICH. It's called USING A CAB. Now, maybe you know plenty of people barely making ends meet who hail down cabs and get their asses hauled around town. I don't. There are more taxis in the city than there are cars in midtown at any given time. Where are your poor people now? At work, then cramming into a congested subway during rush hour.
The biggest problem I had with the congestion pricing proposal is that it didn't charge cabs. But I figured that it was a first step, and that at some point we would get to cabs and livery trucks, so that every single vehicle which spewed toxic waste into our air would have to pay a fee for our city's efforts to battle their pollution on their behalf.
And please don't give me some "the little guy's gonna get hit hardest" bull because there's no little guy in Manhattan driving a cab or a truck. I work in construction, and believe, any working class professional driving to work has a fat, yes FAT, bank account and owns a house in Jersey or Queens.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:45 AM
ACtually, allow me to correct myself.
" There are more taxis in the city than there are cars in midtown at any given time." I meant to say, There are more taxis than cars in midtown at peak hours. Stats to come, i have to dig them up.
"there's no little guy in Manhattan driving a cab or a truck" -- Well, obviously that's a pile of hooey. Plenty of poor people drive cabs, and trucks. The cab's surcharge would be paid for by the traveller who wants to come in or out of the congestion zone. And the truck driver should be billing it to Bouley or Sephora or whatever new chain of coffee stores is requiring the delivery of soy milk. It's not gonna kill Starbucks.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:54 AM
OH NOES!
The MTA is going to miss out on projected funding it would end up wasting/losing in "accounting errors".
Everybody Panic!
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:55 AM
11.45;
I understand your points, but think that CP is a poor way to attack the problem. Wouldn't an increase in the gas tax be a much more effective way to tax pollution, yet preserve our freedom and avoid this nonsensical class warfare? I don't care if some one is rich or poor: if they want to pollute via gas consumption, the cost to society ought to be factored in via a consumption tax.
Moreover, I think the proponents of any such increase in tax, be it CP or an increase in the gas tax, would have a much easier time selling it to the public (myself included) if there was a corresponding decrease in the income or property tax. I already pay enough to the city and state governments. Remember that the sales tax was increased about 15 years ago EXPLICITLY to fund the MTA. We've seen these promises before....and the Second Ave. subway is STILL not built.
Benson
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 11:59 AM
11.45;
I understand your points, but think that CP is a poor way to attack the problem. Wouldn't an increase in the gas tax be a much more effective way to tax pollution, yet preserve our freedom and avoid this nonsensical class warfare? I don't care if some one is rich or poor: if they want to pollute via gas consumption, the cost to society ought to be factored in via a consumption tax.
Moreover, I think the proponents of any such increase in tax, be it CP or an increase in the gas tax, would have a much easier time selling it to the public (myself included) if there was a corresponding decrease in the income or property tax. I already pay enough to the city and state governments. Remember that the sales tax was increased about 15 years ago EXPLICITLY to fund the MTA. We've seen these promises before....and the Second Ave. subway is STILL not built.
Benson
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:00 PM
11:34 - I disagree. I believe most of the people driving into the city and using garages stay for the day. They do not have time to circle for miles to find a parking space. They have to get to work!
My proposal could be modified. How about no additional parking garage tax if you park for less than one hour, or perhaps two hours? This way you just tax the Fat Cats who are driving their BMW's into Manhattan for their multi-six-figure jobs.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:01 PM
What exactly is the difference between giving the MTA a hundred million dollars and dumping it all in the river?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:05 PM
The fat cats have drivers who just wait all day for them or they have private garages in their law firms or banks. These guys don't use the same grungy garages you and I do.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:09 PM
What does having a bank account have to do with driving a car? Some people, and not just non English speaking people, or uneducated people, don't have bank accounts for a lot of reasons, some good, some practical, some completely nutty. Ever looked at your bank statement? Bank accounts are an expense for some people that they would rather not incur. Point remains, they are out there, and they are not in the plan, and will make up a sizable number of people.
Regardless, I do not think it is in any way practical to demand that delivery people deliver goods after 6pm. That is unrealistic for 9-5 companies, and for any business that depends on receiving any kind of goods too big for a messenger bag. This city runs on the ability to move things around, and is not going to have that movement hindered without a big fight. I have no problem with the idea of charging Joe Commuter to drive into Manhattan in his Hummer, because he doesn't like public transportation.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at April 8, 2008 12:10 PM
The bottom line is that it was a regressive tax that most regular people outside the ritziest neighborhoods did not support.
Don't worry, it will be back.
Next time they will call it the anti-global warming toll or the polar bear cub toll. They will call it anything as long as they can get their hands on more of our dough.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2008 12:21 PM
11:45 more taxis than cars.... yup... agreed. So then a taxi-cab fare hike covers that doesn't it? Without putting 1984 cameras everywhere.
separated bike/express bus lanes create an advantage for bike and bus riders, more of the cities streets are allocated to bike and bus riders, giving them more space and faster tranists... reducing the incentive to drive. throw car-pool into the bus express lanes (tikcet violators)... and you have even further encouragment of good vehicle choices and a source of revenue WITHOUT compromising our freedoms or placing a unbalanced tax on everyone.
As to taxis are only for the rich, you would be a fool to think so, and not someone who lives in NY. I rarely take taxies, cause i dislike the expense, but almost any NYer has taken a taxi for a variety of reasons... amongst them... a not wealthy girl alone at night, a person drunk who realizes a taxi is safer for them, someone getting from york to hudson, someone who would be otherwise late for a job interview... and inumerous other reasons.... do you really think that "half the cars on the street are taxis" are filled with rich people?
YOUR outlook doesnt do a thing to stop people polluting at all, makes YOU kinda chinese... freedom to pollute!! just pay up!
no, instead of CP we should be looking for proposals that ACTUALLY encourage non (or less) polluting alternatives, CP just ups the cost of manhatten.. nothing else.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:22 PM
Call me Joe Commuter. I drive in to work sometimes and I really enjoy my freedom, flexability and love the fact that I'm in control and not some MTA train operator or computer. Being underground and packed like sardines nowadays just gives me the heebie jeebies.
Dont Thread on me.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:33 PM
While I favor a (national) gas tax - it is in fact FAR FAR more regressive than CP
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:33 PM
Looking at the vote in the city council it appears that the city was split about 50/50 on the issue. What bothers me most about this whole debacle is that our elected representatives in Albany didn't even put this to a vote. This way they can say that they didn't vote for it and they didn't vote against it depending on who their target audience is. This goes on quite often which is why nothing ever gets done. Imagine if I showed up at work and decided to do nothing because if I did something, I wouldn't know if my boss would like it or not. They are a bunch of p***y asses.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:47 PM
I say bullshit to those who say there will be less congestion. Even the Mayor's own rosy plan says that congestion would only decrease by around 6 percent, and when was the last time a government projection like that was true? If congestion decreases then it will become easier to drive and more people will do so, thus eliminating almost all the benefit. The only real difference will be that the people driving will be the ones for whom the congestion charge is not an issue, while the rest of us will be on even more crowded subways.
And don't tell me that there will be more subways to take up the slack because the busiest subway lines are already running at full capacity, with no room for more trains no matter how much money you throw at the problem.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:53 PM
I for one do not believe that our lives would be better or more perfect if we gave the government just a little more money. They always need just a little bit more in order to fix everything and make our lives perfect.
All governments are tyrannies, it is the role of the citizenry, whether in NY or the former East Germany, to revolt now and then and keep the ruling elites in their place.
Our current mayor whose motto is "I'm really rich and you're not" needs citizen intervention more than most.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:54 PM
12.33 PM;
You state that a gas (consumption) tax is far, far more regressive than a CP as if it were self-evident. You offer no arguments in defense of this position.
I don't buy your statement for a moment. If one puts a higher tax on gas, it still provides people with the freedom to make the appropriate choice, given their situation. If one has more modest means, it might mean the purchase of a more efficient (or smaller) car. They might opt to use the subway instead.
Moreover, consumption tends to correlate with income. I don't think it is the poor who consume gas for pleasure motorboating, or weekend drives to their country home. The great thing about sucha tax,however, is that it makes no distinction: you consume, you pay.
Benson
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 12:59 PM
What exactly is the difference between giving the MTA a hundred million dollars and dumping it all in the river?
-The clean-up costs would be greater if it goes to the MTA
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 1:00 PM
if the goal was truly to cut down on pollution, then Bloomberg would do better to put pressure on the auto industry, and even more on the profit bloated oil industry, to come up with more and better alternative fuel cars, and smaller vehicles. Better yet, alternative fuel trucks and vans, as well. The only ones I've seen in Manhattan belong to Whole Foods, and how many can that be compared to the huge number of commercial vehicles in the city? At least many of the MTA buses run on alternative fuels.
Europe, whose gas costs twice what ours does, has switched to smaller, more fuel efficient cars. What do we do? Build Hummers and Escalades the size of Texas, usually occupied only by the driver. As a nation, we are not interested in saving money, fuel, or the environment. Until we are really serious about that, nothing will change.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at April 8, 2008 2:16 PM
Little cars are for little people Montrose. You're not going to get me into one of those Dr. Seuss playcars you see in Rome and Paris. Besides the only people who want little cars in America are New Yorkers, most of whom have never even bought a car, so I don't think the auto industry sees us as their ideal demographic. However you are absolutely correct that alternative fuels need to be further exploited and used. We need to develop cleaner cars and trucks and I think we are doing so. Let the traffic take care of itself. I for one am happy that the CEO of JP Morgan is stuck in the same traffic jam I am. It's democratic. The anti-poor driver's tax is not.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2008 2:31 PM
Sam, I'm tall and a little wider than I need to be, so I hear you, although I was suprised at how roomy a Mini Cooper is. My first trip to Italy was in 1973, and the teenage group I was a part of thought it was the funniest thing in the world to pick up a Fiat and turn it around facing the other way. They couldn't do that with a Detroit land yacht. Point being that was 35 years ago, and Europeans have been building small for a couple of generations, while we haven't until lately.
We have the technology to do many amazing things. I find it highly unlikely that we haven't figured out how to cheaply and efficiently use alternative fuels. The tech is there, big oil doesn't want it to succeed. Until we break their hold on us, we will be dependent on fossil fuels, and massive pollution will continue.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at April 8, 2008 2:47 PM
Wrong MOntrose - the Hummers and Escalades in midtown are the hired driver of limo service and the passenger in the back seat. But Bloomberg was not interested in cutting down their usage...just the Camry driver from Queens.
Is it just me - or do others get the feeling the the most pro-CP folks are also the most anti-AY and anit-other big development projects that maximize density nearest mass-transit? And they probably scoff at houses that are only 16 feet wide and don't have central air or Sub-Zero appliances that suck up lots of electricity.? THen they fly off in (very high carbon footprint)airplanes to vacation in Europe and come back and tell us how much better it is done over there.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 2:55 PM
A good rule of thumb for hard-working middle class folks is that if the NY Times editorial board is for it, you probably want to be agaisnt it. That board has never met a new tax it didn't like. Based on the editorial piece today they seem really really pissed off that the peasants won another round.
The peasants rejoice!!
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 3:16 PM
If you look at most the cars on the roads in Brooklyn it is NOT rich people, sorry. The professional class take the subway to work in Manhattan.
It is by majority the working class in Brooklyn who value owning a car and driving it absolutely everywhere. It's the American dream. They don't drive because they have to. They drive because they want to. Big difference.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 3:24 PM
I don't find that to be true, 2:55. Where I am working, and where my business takes me, most of the huge SUV's have NJ plates, or Long Island stickers, and are not livery. Maybe down in Master of the Universe territory, but not the garment district, or SoHo. Also, unless soccor moms who can't see over the steering wheel are now driving people around, I'd say a good majority of these behemoths are passenger vehicles only.
As to your other points, I disagree, as well. Your examples contain issues that are more complex than just being for or against central air, or being politically correct. You can be pro transit and pro development, and be anti AY, for example.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at April 8, 2008 3:41 PM
I agree with 3:24, it isn't the people living in the inner neibs who work in midtown or Wall Street who are driving in large numbers, its the less affluent folks who live a little further away. This is why every ritzy neighborhood association from the Upper East Side to brooklyn Heights wants to impose fees for driving and parking. They want to get rid of the riff-raff as much as possible. Never mind that the riff-raff takes care of their children, cleans their houses, fixes their furnaces, etc etc. The NY Times and the wealthy classes do not want the unwealthy clogging up the streets and slowing down their trips to Whole Foods or the Hamptons.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 4:05 PM
what a well written fart.
Can someone point me to the "Master of Universe Territory" and please explain to me WTF is a "long island sticker"?
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 4:17 PM
I agree with Montrose on this one. From what I see, most SUV's are owned by working-class folks. Take a drive through the working-class districts of Brooklyn, NJ on a Saturday, and you'll see them parked in the driveways everywhere.
I don't see anything wrong with this, though it's not my cup of tea. Live and let live. However, I do agree that they should pay for the pollution they spew into the air, which is a common property. Hence, my continued support for a higher consumption tax (coupled with a reduction in the income or property tax).
Once that is said, that is the end of the story for me. If some guy gets his kicks out of using his hard-earned money to drive around a Hummer - well - more power to him, despite the tsk-tsks from the New York Times editorial board and their fellow travellers. When you see one of these types wagging their finger at you, hit the accelerator and blow past them.
Benson
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 4:18 PM
Well I am definitely hugely in favor of CP and Pro-AY. B/c despite the huge income that Bruce pays me to post on this board (not) I think both are parts of making NYC a viable and successful city for the next 50yrs
Alas - things have not been going my way of late.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 4:29 PM
Well I am definitely hugely in favor of CP and Pro-AY. B/c despite the huge income that Bruce pays me to post on this board (not) I think both are parts of making NYC a viable and successful city for the next 50yrs
Alas - things have not been going my way of late.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 4:32 PM
CP was basically not about reducing pollution or traffic. It was about making Manhattan even more of an enclave of the rich and entitled. Why?
1. Congestion would be reduced only by 6%
2. The much vaunted money for the MTA would not improve much of anything because as someone pointed out, the system runs at capacity now in terms of trains it can run. If you want to get people out of their cars, you have to add more subway lines and bus routes.
And if they haven't done that before- after all the promises of what they would do with increased fares, etc- what makes anyone think they will use the money to improve transportation service? In the outer boroughs- since we would be the ones paying for it- not in Manhattan on 2nd Ave., or a for a new crosstown line, also in Manhattan. Screw Manhattan. All that does is make it easier for them, while we still have the same problem here.
3. congestion happens all over- why price it only for below 60th St? Oh- the the upper westsiders and Eastsiders would pay and goodness! we can't have that.
4. Trucks and vans are business related and ergo the financial health of the City dpepends on them. Need food? Well, it gets delivered in a truck. CP is the worst idea for trucks and business vans I have ever heard of- demand they clean up their act regarding fuel emissions but forcing them to pay just to drive in just means we will be paying higher prices. they'll make it back and keep going. We'll be paying twice over.
5. There should be exemptions for people who do not have easy access to public transportation but need to get into the city for work. Make car pooling more attractive, improve public transportation, but CP as it stands would do nothing but punish those -which includes cops and firefighters by the way-who live further out in the boroughs (and who couldn't afford to live in Manhattan anyway). Can we say elitist?
6. CP was just another way of approaching the implementation of the Bloomberg "Only the Rich deserve to live in Manhattan" concept.
goodbye CP
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 5:03 PM
Missing from this debate is the concensus that congestion pricing actually helps business. Congestion is estimated to cost the city $13 billion a year. One such study:
http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/report.php?ID=52
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 5:23 PM
I'm all for congestion pricing. If you need to get into Manhattan and can't afford the parking, the tolls and the congestion pricing then take some form of public transportation. The luxury of being able to drive a vehicle with one person in it to an overly crowded Manhattan is over.
No, the MTA should not have any control over this money
Yes, the NJ residents should pay more as well. The current bridge/tunnel tolls are not a congestion pricing charge. they are in place to pay for the upkeep of the bridges and tunnels.
On the promotion of more bikes in Manhattan, I say NO. Having lived in Manhattan for 14 years and working there as well, the MAJORITY of people on bikes that I see pay no attention to stoplights and fly through the intersections, at best weaving in and out of pedestrians (who have the light AND, the right of way anyway). Most of them just fly right through and should be arrested...or better yet maybe they'd learn if a few more were hit by cars when they are riding against the light. The bike riders are a big problem in Manhattan whether most of you know this or not. Granted, most of the problem is with the parcel riders, most of whom are lunatics of some sort or another.
Bike riders need to learn that the pedestrian has the right of way.
And what's this BS I'm hearing about a "millionaires tax" in lieu of the congestion pricing???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2008 5:33 PM
5:23 a 6% reduction will not help business's, that reduction is a best guess, and would diminish as time goes on.
5:33 you sound like a real ass. wanna set down mandates little king? i mean yea, screw nj... and screw anyone who wants/needs to drive into manhatten during business hours... even if they don't need to stay. Lets make manhatten the rich mans island alone.... also screw those bike riders... instead of giving them a seperete space so they cause less issues... we should just run em over.... thatll teach them for being the GREENEST of all choices.
wow... really.
I get it now... CP is backed by assholes, idiots, or the rich. awesome.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 7:32 PM
congestion pricing will help business? ha! that's a Big Lie suitable for Lenin or Stalin. Yes, comrade, let the state help you out a little with your business, don't worry, you're going to love it. it won't hurt.....
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 7:52 PM
congestion pricing will help business? ha! that's a Big Lie suitable for Lenin or Stalin. Yes, comrade, let the state help you out a little with your business, don't worry, you're going to love it. it won't hurt.....
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 7:53 PM
The first order or business for any competent city official should be to fire every employee at the MTA who doesn't actually drive a train and sue all the fat cats who are milking the dollars out of our transit system for all they're worth. The second order of business would be to create a competent organization to run the mass transit in this city.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:01 PM
There are way too many cars in the city. Congestion pricing would have been great for this city.
The point has already been made, but why should people have to pay to take mass transit but get a free ride when they drive in??
And the fact that they didn't even put it to a vote because there wasn't enough evidence of support for it?...wow. Disgraceful.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:03 PM
"Only the Rich deserve to live in Manhattan" concept.
HOW TRUE!!! BUT I would take that even further- CP was yet one more not so subtle attempt to make the ENTIRE city a place for ONLY the rich or near rich. CP would have impacted the the outer boroughs by way of parking permits and who know what else. All this would accomplish would be to make NYC harder to live in for those who are only barely hanging on now.
There is a concerted movement to push certain groups out of this city. And I don't mean to NJ. -that would be to close for elitists, Pennsylvania in the Poconos is more like it. Those of us who take note of these things know what's up. CP-needed to die. I am glad it did. As for the money being used for mass transit yeah, that's like OTB money being used for education.
Face it, NYC has always been messy, crowded and congested-but some how all that and more has made it fertile ground for creativity, diversity, and the habitation of the the most dynamic varied people in America. With this push now to get all but the so called upper classes out of the 5 boroughs it's in danger of losing that in fact NYC HAS already lost a great deal of it's verve. BUT with CP defeated, it gives people like me some hope those plans may yet be stopped. Bloomberg was dead wrong on this. It's time for a change.
Al
P.S. 10:19 was on point all the way about the police state thing & CP. Well said.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:04 PM
I think the Mayor should clean up his own house first free the street's of traffic and congestion created by the city owned cars.Just walk around City Hall cars are parked in no standing zones all day. They are parked in bike lanes. There are doubled parked cars for blocks in front of the courts on Center St causing congestion every day. This is the toll they wanted and did not get on the East river bridges. We should demand the City follow the same parking rules the rest of us must follow.
How about closing one of the arteries leading off the Brooklyn Bridge and make it a parking lot for the police then give tickets to the drivers stuck in the congestion on the Bridge.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:08 PM
If you don't like traffic, you will not like living in the city. The city is not about nature or fresh air or growin' good hay. You want the country. I look at some of these twenty-somethings with their mud-kicking boots and their giant wilderness backpacks on the subway. They look for all the world like they have been transported from remotest Montana to the center of Gotham. Honestly, I think young people are so confused. when they go to camping do they get all dressed up in sophisticated suits and pinpoint shirts? there is the CITY and there is the STICKS. where's the confusion?
In the city there is traffic and sometimes the air stinks. if you are too much the delicate petunia to stand it then seek the greener environs of the sticks, the US is full of boring rural areas but there is only one NY.
Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 8:29 PM
4:17, obviously you don't read much. Master of the Universe refers to Wall Street types, as described in Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities, and the phrase has been in use since he wrote the book. I obviously meant downtown in the financial district.
And I obviously meant bumper stickers, parking stickers, school or beach parking stickers that indicate the communities where people live. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes (another literary reference) to figure it out. I think your farts have internalized right into your brain, so you better be careful about that. Could be dangerous.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at April 9, 2008 2:40 AM
I own a car and supported CP. I only drive it once or twice a week, and even though the 8 bucks would have hurt, I would have been willing to pay it if it sped up traffic.
The only problem is that I doubt it would have helped much with traffic (see VNB and SIE as examples of where high tolls haven't helped much).
I also would have preferred to hear of specific areas that increased funds would have gone to; for example, CP should have been coupled with a concrete timeline for express buses, new subway lines, separated bike lanes, reduced parking placards, etc. As is, the plan seemed a little nebulous.
I hope it is resurrected, maybe next year, with better details.
Posted by: guest at April 9, 2008 9:09 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.