They bitch about gas prices on Kos too.

Yes, Brad, we have a lot of work to do, but we also have a long, long time to wait: across the country, “environmentalists” think Priuses will save the planet, and Democrats encourage that foolish attitude.

Re: Car Free Nation’s comment:

I think the question for Republicans in Albany was, how much can you hand over for our party in exchange for our support?

And the answer was…$500,000. The mayor’s just got to spread the money around more generously to everyone the next time!

So many people, including many who care about the environment, are irrationally habituated to the myths and realities of private auto travel.

We have got to build the constituency for livable streets from the ground up by getting these people out of their cars and making them realize that walking, bicycling and mass transit are viable and in many cases superior options. Bike month is next month, folks–get a car-owning friend out there with you!

“Time to kiss and make up with Brodsky, Fidler, etc and move beyond this temporary setback.”

Can’t we just shake hands? Although Fidler is pretty cute with his new glasses.

“Cars are not going to go away and are not evil.” I beg to disagree.

When gas becomes unaffordable to the majority, and people can no longer support the cost of driving, quite a few cars will go away. That day will come sooner than you think.

As for evil, I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder. For folks in rural areas, it would be hard to live without a car. But forcing large amounts of cars into a dense urban fabric like NYC does have some evil consequences: pollution, noise, wasted time, respiratory disease, grievous bodily harm, etc.

In the eye of this beholder, cars are evil. Granted, that’s a subjective judgment, but that’s how I feel about them. That’s why I refuse to own one or to live in car country. It’s also why I pay close attention to Streetsblog.

New slogan for the keep-driving-no-matter-what-the-cost movement:

“You’ll get me out of my car when you pry the steering wheel out of my cold, dead hands”

I wrote about this on another post but it bears repeating. People who drive cars view their travel as free. Not everybody but I was talking to a former car owner who basically agreed that while insurance, gas and repairs sometimes feel like added costs their lack of frequency coupled with near constant auto use generally leads people to see time in the car as without cost. Sure driving has really high transaction costs some of which are borne by the user(traffic) and some of which the rest of bear(the planet being ruined) but drivers don’t really FEEL those costs. So the psychological impact of free one day costs money the next is just too much for people to deal with.

Also, this whole thing reminds me of debates about mass transit in places where transit generally sucks. Everyone argues that it doesn’t work because nobody uses it but people who would use it don’t because it doesn’t work. If you just changed some of the way we spend money or adjust some zoning or add a congestion charge you’ll see that you don’t “have” to drive to work everyday, you just do it because that’s the way it’s most convenient. But there’s no reason why we couldn’t make taking the train JUST as convenient, people just don’t want to devote the dollars or the resources. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It could just as easily be otherwise.

Guys, please STOP pointing fingers the aspirationally green Dems that actually killed pricing and START pointing your pointing your fingers as these cardboard cutouts of self-righteous bicyclists that I am happy to supply! I can’t believe you’re still talking about congestion pricing—this minor thing you only spent 18 months advocating—43 HOURS after it was fairly killed by a flawless democratic process. How long will you go on? Three DAYS? A week!? Taking score and holding legislators accountable is NOT productive, people.

A few months back the popular liberal blogger Atrios posted an off the cuff complaint about cyclists in Philadelphia and it was kind of shocking all the bike venom it opened up in the comments among “progressives.”

I’m a DKos member, and I objected strongly to that diary. There’s a segment of the population there who is strongly anti-Bloomberg, and thinks that anything he proposes is bad, presumably because he’s rich and ran as a Republican.

Wait a minute…

some selfish people made some dumb comments, but let’s not forget that the actual diary was pro-congestion pricing. I don’t think it’s fair to label the entire kos community as being opposed to congestion pricing. If you look at the NY liberal blogosphere, the vast majority of bloggers were strongly in favor of it and have been tearing Sheldon Silver a new one for the past 2 days.

bob, i don’t think there’s actually a formal distinction between the terms liberal & progressive the way you’re supposing there is. for the most part, i believe the consensus view is that progressive is merely a more politically palatable euphemism for the successfully demonized by the right “liberal”.

There is a lot about the “progressives” that, while outwardly environmentalist also favors cheap oil, another way to favor SUVs, congestion and polution. Historically the Progressives out in the hinterlands peopled the core of the “good roads movement” that helped drive the private railroads, trolley and inter-urban systems into bankruptcy. Socialism for trucks.

Much like the Kennedys who oppose wind power off of Cape Cod. Actually, lots of Obama supporters on “progressive” Air America take similar positions.

Its hard for our political culture to negotiate a useful balance of socialism and capitalism when our people know so little about both.

So Paulb, you’re saying that the map in this fact sheet is a lie?

http://www.e-benchmarks.com/congestion/factsheets/queens/council/cc_gioia_26.pdf

I’d like to see increased funding for transit, but my support for the plan has mainly rested on the prediction that congestion pricing would reduce all the unnecessary bridge traffic in my neighborhood. An additional selling point was the increased efficiency for vehicles driving crosstown in Manhattan. If I didn’t believe that, I’d have been looking for another way.

How knowledgeable are these people you know personally? Can they show me why I was wrong?

Angus, I’m not saying the map is a “lie,” per se. But it’s only someone’s guess about traffic trends. And most of that PDF is devoted to the benefits of the revenue, not lower congestion, which I think helps to indirectly make my point.

The only way to prove CP’s promised effect on traffic was to implement it. Are you really asserting that I must be wrong because I don’t take at face value some predictions of planners and advocates? And if you’re also arguing that the impressions/opinions/skepticism of my acquaintances (and the ones I am talking about are born New Yorkers who are reasonably well informed) are irrelevant because they aren’t “experts,” then, if that attitude is shared by CP’s advocates, I’m not surprised they lost.

“And Doc Barnett, of course we (ok, you) should hold the electeds accountable that killed CP.”

That was parody, Damien. 😉 What I really think: practically everyone here has had a chance to live with the great American automobile at some time; the “immutable lifestyle” perspective is not special or helpful, and (of course!) non-voting Dems must be held accountable. If nothing else, the pricing effort gave us a snapshot of their political priorities: the automobile or public transportation? The automobile or the environment? The automobile or public health? Even if I believed that misgivings about the government charging an income-blind use fee were the reason they chose the automobile, I’d still vote against them for making that misgiving their top priority.

But like Greg R said, back to the topic: it is going to be slow going nationally, where the Democratic surge is largely propelled by anger over high gas prices. Democratic presidential candidates try to top each other in taking the macho stances against “big oil,” as if that would lower prices and as if lowering those prices were a good thing. I scoffed my way through this story about Obama’s silly oil commercial and Clinton’s silly response, followed by over 150 comments from people that call themselves progressives ranting about the price you pay at the pump (what?), and only one or two daring to mention that cheap gas is unambiguously bad for the environment:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/new_hillary_ad_obama_only_take.php

The Democratic party is far from facing the automobile problem, or even knowing what “livable streets” means. But as new generations move to cities and gas becomes literally too expensive for their constituents to afford (and hands-on-hips are shown to have no effect on the international oil market), a lack of alternatives will force them to finally act to advance public transportation and energy conservation. Unless Republicans beat them to it, as with congestion pricing.

PaulB, I lived in London when the congestion charge went into effect and the speed of vehicle movement went up immediately and stayed that way. The most important effect of this change was that …busses moved faster! So the congestion charge actually was most effective in improving transit. Also as you point out the revenue was immediately poored into more and better busses, and Next bus signage. Academic research shows (google Brian Taylor at UCLA) that people consider waiting and transfer times as 3times more onerous than in-vehicle time. So next bus signs are incredibly effective at improving the transit experience.

Why did most of the posters here buy into the Bloomberg plan? In spite of the changes made, it ignored the legitimate objections of many citizens and ignored the Minority Report from the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Committee. I urge you all to read that report, it may surprise you.

It seems that many of you wanted this plan or no plan, and, ultimately, that’s what killed it.

There were insufficient disincentives to discourage motorists from Connecticut, Westchester, New Jersey, Long Island and Pennsylvania from driving in; most would have only paid an additional $2.00, while outer-borough residents, who are, after all New York City residents and New York City taxpayers, would have paid the lion’s share of the cost. Coincidentally, New York City residents constitute the smallest percentage of drivers in the city.

All indications are that the Bloomberg plan would not have provided the relief from pollution desired by most residents, and that revenues would have been much lower than projected.

Now is the time for advocates to get together and produce a more comprehensive and more palatable plan to reduce congestion and pollution, to make streets friendlier and safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, and provide for much improved mass transit.

Just because the state legislature killed Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing scheme doesn’t mean the issue is dead. My alternate proposal, presented to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission in 2007, consists of three parts. I’m sure this proposal, too, would be nitpicked by all, but we need a continuing dialog—and an implemented plan.

1) An entry fee.
The entire city, not just Manhattan, suffers from nightmarish traffic. When I recently had occasion to return a rental car to Manhattan from my home in Bensonhurst, the trip took two and a half hours, for a journey of ten and a half miles. There was no accident clogging the roads, they were just jammed, as usual. This is typical for vehicular travel within the five boroughs.

So, rather than congestion pricing, which will only alleviate traffic in Manhattan, and which will only produce limited revenues, charge a daytime entry fee to New York City, a twenty-five dollar surcharge to all drivers entering the five boroughs, with a reduced fee for through traffic, and let those funds be dedicated to public transportation improvements, with a percentage set aside for road and bridge maintenance. This alone would have an extremely beneficial effect on traffic throughout New York City, and produce vastly higher revenues than Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing alone.

There are those who will object and say that such a fee will hurt business in the city—nonsense. The city is (at least for the time being) the economic engine that drives prosperity throughout the region—if they have a genuine need to drive, they will continue to come, and many will move to mass transit, a desired outcome.

New York City residents will be exempt from this fee, and could be identified through special EZPass devices, and by special New York City license plates. This would also remedy another source of revenue loss—many city residents now register their cars in other states—Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, etc., to obtain lower insurance, and to take advantage of lower registration fees. Under this plan, they would have an incentive to register as New York City residents, producing another revenue stream, and with reduced traffic will come reduced accidents and insurance rates.

2) Driver and enforcement reform.
We must step up enforcement as well. The vast majority of moving violations do not result in any sort of fines or penalties; they go unnoticed. This needs to be addressed; increased enforcement will produce more revenue, and a percentage of that revenue, plus a portion of entry fees can be dedicated to traffic enforcement and driver reform. Many drivers in the area feel that they can break speed limits, talk on cell phones, fail to signal—even kill pedestrians. And they’re right. Review pedestrian deaths over the past few years; if a driver isn’t drunk, he usually faces no charges or fines of any sort. A casket truck driver killed a four year-old boy last year (2006) in Sunset Park; he admitted to speeding and to running a red light, actions which directly caused the boy’s death, yet he faced no charges at all. Time and again, pedestrian deaths resulting from driver carelessness go unpunished. This is wrong, and if we are a just and humane society, we can no longer countenance such behavior. Drunk driving causes forty percent of all traffic fatalities— guess who causes the rest. Careless driving must have steep penalties; our children deserve no less. Stringent traffic enforcement will change driver attitudes, return revenues, and even convince many to use mass transit, instead.

3) Reform the MTA.
PlaNY seeks to add over three-hundred more express buses, complete the Second Avenue subway, and the number 7 line extension. These improvements, while notable and desirable, are inadequate. Again, those who take express buses are still victims of what the Federal DOT calls extreme commutes—a commute of more than 45 minutes duration, one way—extreme commutes that cost more than double what other transit riders pay.

The MTA is one of the most poorly managed enterprises to ever exist. Time limits here prevent me from citing a long litany of poor performance, but we’re all aware of the many billion-dollar boondoggles attributable to this agency, ranging from their over-priced headquarters to their poorly-planned station renovations. After over one-hundred years of operations, August 8, 2007’s flooding debacle left many lines out of service more than twenty-four hours after the rains had ceased. Likewise, many sections of track, signals and switches are still in need of repair, while lavish amounts of money have been spent on executive offices and compensation, and poorly conceived cosmetic improvements, such as the granite/terrazzo tiles at the Broadway-Lafayette station, half of which are broken, due to poor installation. Slippery when wet, these tiles also cause an increase in slip and fall suits against the MTA.

It should be clear to all that small, incremental improvements will not meet our transportation challenges. If we seek to get drivers out of their Lexuses, or even their Corollas for that matter, we need a transit system that is safe, affordable, comfortable, and, most of all, one that is at least twice as fast as the system we have now. Adding some so-called express buses will not even come close to accomplishing these goals. New subway lines are necessary; lines that reach the vast stretches of Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island that have been abandoned by mass transit. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) lines can be added in many places. In addition, standards of behavior need to be enforced; Miami has hired Wackenhut to augment the police in that regard, with an enforcement officer on every train, and with excellent results.

The twenty-first century presents us with numerous challenges; among them, population pressures, pollution, increasing political instability in many parts of the world, oil shortages and prices that are now over $100 a barrel, and the challenge of sustainability. We live in the financial and cultural capital of the world, and we must create a transportation system befitting that status.

If you dislike that plan, there are many other alternatives; Theodore Kheel’s plan has many excellent ideas.

Here are some more proposals that don’t involve a fee:

• Make all the major crosstown thoroughfares (Canal, Houston, 14th Street, 23rd Street, 34th Street, 42nd Street, 57th Street, 72nd Street, 79th Street, 86th Street, 96th Street, 106th Street, 116th Street, 125th Street, 145th Street, 181st Street, and finally, Dyckman Street) accessible to pedestrians, bicycles and buses (BRT) only.

• Do the same for every third or fourth avenue (First Avenue, Lexington Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Broadway, Ninth Avenue).

• Make all deliveries requiring trucks larger than a van take place between 6PM and 6AM.

• Do the same for major thoroughfares in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx.

• Establish a dedicated force of 2,500 police to enforce the traffic laws, dedicate half of the increased fines collected to mass transit; the other half would pay for the increased enforcement.

• Eliminate at least half of the parking placards now in circulation.

• Double the parking tax; dedicate the increased revenues to mass transit.

• Triple the street parking fees; dedicate the increased revenues to mass transit.

• Eliminate city sales tax on bicycles and bike equipment.

• Make the fine for traveling over 30mph in the city $20.00 for every mile per hour above 30—and strictly enforce it.

• Ban “schooling” behavior of cabs—hundreds at a time travel up Church/Sixth Ave en masse or down Columbus while people elsewhere can’t find one. Cabbies income would rise, streets would be calmed.

• Get the cross-harbor tunnel built—we’ve been waiting since 1915!

But we need to do something, the status quo isn’t working. Please post your ideas.

Why such a defeatist attitude? The Minority Report from the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Committee agreed with many of my points.

There is still much we can do, but the first order of business should be to put an end to this stupid bickering, and to produce a MAJORITY consensus as to how to proceed.

Commissioner Sadik-Khan has not given up, and the Federal DOT has said that money could still be made available.

An entry fee is not impossible, is fairer to all city residents, and the cost would be borne not by a minority of outer-borough residents, but by the majority of drivers who enter the city; who, incidentally, have per capita incomes that are approximately three times greater than those who live in the city. Why did you prefer to tax your fellow city residents for completely unsubstantiated claims? What proved to you that was the only way to proceed? Those aren’t criticisms, they’re honest questions to which I would like answers. Saying, “You’re just wrong about that.” is just contentious, and doesn’t help us to move forward.

http://bettertransitny.blogspot.com

Dear Plato:

I mean this report:

https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/programs/congestion_mitigation_commission/minority-report

It is not clear who signed it; I’ll have to re-read it. And the unsubstantiated claims were that traffic would be significantly reduced in the outer boroughs, and that the MTA can be trusted to dedicate congestion pricing to capital improvements—where’s concrete evidence for that? I never claimed congestion pricing doesn’t work, only that the implementation you and others are so fond of was poorly thought out and would not have reduced traffic or improved subway service to the extent predicted by its proponents.

People from Westchester, Connecticut, and Long Island would have only paid an additional 2 dollars—do you really think that would have discouraged anyone from those environs from coming to Manhattan? The plan’s costs fell disproportionately on those from the outer boroughs, and there was no guarantee that those who bore the lion’s share of the costs would have received the benefits.

Whether or not you choose to admit it, that’s a legitimate criticism.

If the plan had been approved, traffic might have declined by 2-3% at the most, we would have gotten 300 new express buses that would still be stuck in traffic, minor improvements to 3 subway lines, and not much else. We’d still be paying the greatest percentage of operating costs of any transit agency in the country. All New Yorkers deserve better than that.

http://bettertransitny.blogspot.com

Not everyone from an outer borough is an idiot complaining about gas prices. How about thinking about the entire city as “us”, rather than “us vs. them”.

Both PlaNY 2030, and the Urban Partnership Agreement between the MTA, NYSDOT and NYCDOT sought a 6.3% reduction in VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled), and the Mayor admitted that his plan would probably not produce that much of a reduction—so where on earth did you come up with a reduction in VMT of 15 to 30%? That’s just wishful thinking.

And I disagree that I’m focused on the wrong things. Traffic, transit, pedestrian safety, pollution and law enforcement are all closely tied together, and a GOOD plan should be defined as one that comprehensively addresses the roles that each plays in relation to the whole, and benefits all city residents.