Today’s Headlines

  • Spitzer Resigns; Paterson to Take Office Monday (NYT, NYT)
  • Enroute to Give Speech, Spitzer Stuck in Traffic (Politicker, TRE)
  • Bloomberg: "There’s No Reason" We Can’t Have Pricing (NYT, News)
  • Brodsky Predicts Doom, Again (Sun); He’s Not Alone (Metro)
  • Future of Moynihan Station, Hudson Yards Also in Doubt (Crain’s
  • It’s Unanimous: Council Approves New Bike-Ped Safety Regs (Metro)
  • Brooklyn Bridge Park Needs Bus and Bike Routes (News, Bklyn Eagle)
  • Coney Island Boardwalk Rehab Set for Fall (News)
  • EPA Adopts Slightly Stricter Smog Standards (NYT, BBC)
  • Dave H

    Is anyone familiar enough with City Council to know where online you can see a copy of the new legislation? I poked around on the website and couldn’t find it.

  • Larry Littlefield

    What doom?

    The MTA was counting on $8 billion in capital funding from the federal government, plus $4.5 billion in congestion pricing revenues.

    But Anthony Weiner has personally guaranteed, staking his Mayoral campaign on it, that if congestion pricing is not passed he will ensure that the federal government will come up with the money to replace CP without taking back money from New York somewhere else!

    And Richard Brodsky has personally guaranteed other money from Albany for the rest of the plan!

    And Lew Fidler has personally guaranteed that not only would all those needs be funded, but with an additional tax designed not to hit the retired and independently wealthy, we will also have the most transportation spending since the 1950s, despite the growing needs of aging population!

    And all this despite already having the highest state and local tax burden in the U.S.

    Remember, these men have promised. Will the press make their promises “old news” as of three weeks from now, if CP is not passed? Or the very measure of their political careers, and honesty and integrity, if they do not deliver?

  • ddartley

    Also today, an MSN Money article, “The True Cost of Car Crashes.”

    “A study tallies the cost of accidents — fatalities, damage, lost pay — and finds car-dependent smaller cities paying a huge burden. See how your city fared.”

    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/InsureYourCarDyn.aspx?cp-documentid=6411682&GT1=33004

  • anonymous

    Well of course car crashes have a high cost: the whole economic premise of the automobile is that it takes work that can be done by a small number of people for a reasonable amount of money, and pushes it out to be done by the entire population at a much higher cost, both direct and indirect.

  • vnm

    The other evening as I was walking out of the apartment, I saw the immediate aftermath of a crash. Some idiot motorist had slammed directly into a beautiful ornate lamp post, wrecking the front of his or her SUV, as well as the lamp post. The ambulance was there, taking a passenger away to the hospital, along with a bunch of cop cars.

    Who will pay for the lamp post replacement or restoration? The driver’s insurance, or the City (i.e., all taxpayers)?

    Incedentally, had that lamp post not been there, the driver could have seriously injured or killed someone!

  • vnm

    By the way, CNN had a similar story last week as well:

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/economy/AAA_study/?postversion=2008030515