Today’s Headlines

  • New York Traffic Getting a Lot of Attention From DC (Newsday
  • States Should Have Known They Were Being Suckered on Emissions (NYT)
  • Bush Likes Congestion Pricing; Bronx CB 8 Doesn’t
  • Senator Jeff Klein: Free Parking Equals ‘Decent Quality of Life’ (R’dale Press)
  • Fare Increase Was a Done Deal, Dictated by Albany Inaction (NYT
  • With New Fuzzy Math Discount, MTA Will Keep the Change (NYT)
  • Brodsky, Weiner and Gotbaum Line Up to Push 7 Line Stop (NYT)
  • Sander Takes the Train; MTA Board Needs Free Ride Incentive
  • Protesters See Hypocrisy in Washington Square Park Tree Removal (Post, AMNY
  • 72 New Bike Racks for Fort Greene (Brooklyn Paper
  • NYPD Tests Quiet, ‘Clean’ Two-Wheeler, But It’s Not a Bike (AMNY)
  • Vote for 2007’s Greenest and Meanest (Grist) 
  • Davis

    It will take 30 years to elect all of the Senator Jeff Klein’s out of Albany. We need to get started on that project TODAY.

  • God Help Us

    “Congestion pricing threatens to cut into the very heart which defines the culture of this city.” State Sen Jeff Klein.

    Yo Klein, apartments in Houston are much cheaper than NYC and the highways are way bigger.

  • Jonathan

    At least Klein didn’t mention 9-11.

  • Dave

    Why do we only hear from the state senators and politicians who oppose CP? I’d like to see Liz Kreuger, Tom Duane or Martin Conner come out in support of CP for the quality of life improvements it will bring to their constituents who live in the CP zone.

  • Jonathan

    Dave, here’s my opinion on your thoughtful question from 10:21 am: The quality-of-life benefits are twofold: fewer cars and more money for transit. They can’t tout the “fewer cars” benefit because it would be politically toxic, like saying, “I support CP because it will keep Jersey drivers out of the Village.” I can just see the News headline on that one. And they can’t tout the mass-transit benefit, because their constituents are richer than the “cops, firefighters, and teachers” who are being asked to pay for CP. “Cops swallow pricing plan to ease commute for Village-dwelling stockbrokers?” In my opinion such overt support by Manhattan pols would be a debacle.

  • Dave

    I personally think fewer drivers from NJ is a huge benefit but see your point (and the paradox of the Port Authority complaining about lower toll revenue from fewer drivers).
    How about fewer pedestrian fatalities, faster EMS response times, less horn honking and better air quality.
    And a lot of cops, firefighters and teachers are currently using their placards illegally to park for free and that’s a politival fireball there. So if they have to pay the CP charge I have no sympanthy.
    Whenever I see the NYPD and their silly lights-flashing-caravans of police cars roaming through the streets I wonder why the emergency response time issue has never been raised. Are we so afraid to address the issue of another terror attack thagt we can’t address how congestion will delay help in responding?

  • Jonathan

    Dave, I’m not saying that Krueger & Duane’s districts won’t benefit, just that publicizing those benefits is a wash in terms of the overall anti-CP support it would likely galvanize among aggrieved Daily News readers.

    My personal take on EMS response times is that the system is so decentralized and response distances so short that congestion doesn’t make a big difference. Ambulances spend more time waiting for triage at hospitals than stuck in traffic.

  • Spud Spudly

    Of course Bush likes congestion pricing. It’s a boon to his core constituency — the wealthy people who will gladly pay whatever in order to have a faster ride on highways cleared of the people who can’t afford to pay.

    Remember that classic Bush speech to a bunch of kadjillionaires when he said “This is an impressive crowd: the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.” Well, Bush would gladly let the “have-nots” commute in the middle of the night if it allows his base to have more pleasant commutes at normal commuting hours.

    The money can be siphoned off to the military and he gets to score some environmental brownie points as well! What a great thing CP on our nation’s highways would be!

  • Actually, I think Bush’s core constituents are the oil companies, who want to increase automobile use and who would be hurt if congestion pricing becomes widespread.

    As for, “the wealthy people who will gladly pay whatever in order to have a faster ride on highways cleared of the people who can’t afford to pay,” the fact is that 80% of the people in the world can’t afford to drive, and those people in the developing nations are the ones who will be hurt most by global warming caused by the cars that belong to the self-pitying American middle class.

  • Spud Spudly

    There surely were plenty of oil company honchos in the room when he said that.

    But regardless, read the NASDAQ article. Bush wasn’t talking about CP as a way to reduce auto use. He was referring to it as a way to fund more highways and to reduce congestion on existing highways at times of peak usage. I doubt the oil companies are quaking in their boots about that (or about anything George W Bushleague has ever done). And I doubt Greenpeace will be jumping for joy at the thought of congestion pricing revenues being used to fund highways.

  • Is everyone sure that he didn’t mean it, at least in part, as “thats money the federal highway lobby won’t have to share with those mass transit city folk”.

  • JF

    And they can’t tout the mass-transit benefit, because their constituents are richer than the “cops, firefighters, and teachers” who are being asked to pay for CP.

    You’re right that it’s politically difficult for Duane and Krueger to say things like that.

    The senators who actually have the moral authority to demand less cars are people like Serrano, Perkins, Montgomery and yes, Diaz and Adams. They represent districts chock-full of low-income transit users who suffer from the pollution, crashes and noise of wealthier drivers commuting through, and if they stood up and said, “Yes, let’s stop this!” it would be finished.

    But they don’t. There is no outrage or even concern. On the contrary, Diaz continues to call for delays instead of working with pricing proponents to resolve his concerns.

  • “Bush wasn’t talking about CP as a way to reduce auto use. He was referring to it as a way to fund more highways and to reduce congestion on existing highways at times of peak usage.”

    True, there is definitely a split among congestion pricing supporters. Environmentalists support it as a way of reducing traffic, and conservatives support it as a way of letting the free market provide an increasing supply of roads that will keep up with increasing demand. We know that the Heritage Foundation always says that the revenues from NY congestion pricing should be used to build more underground or double-decked freeways in Manhattan.

    But Bloomsberg’s proposal involves reducing traffic and building more transit. It has the environmentalist bias, not the conservative bias.