Congestion pricing—a great idea, a terrible plan

I support congestion pricing, but have extreme reservations about this version they’re trying to ram down our throats. There are serious drawbacks to this plan; most importantly, it will not produce substantial reductions in traffic and pollution, nor will the plan provide sufficient revenues to enable the necessary improvements to mass transit necessitated by congestion pricing.

The plan may also be unconstitutional—how do you justify making outer-borough residents de facto second-class citizens of the city in which they live? What additional tax burden do Manhattanites living within the zone pay, that they should receive preferential treatment above and beyond other city residents? Yet the state assembly was the direct cause of this—the original agreement with the federal DOT did not specifically restrict congestion pricing to the borough of Manhattan (as I read it), but the bill approved by the state assembly and senate authorized the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission to devise a plan restricted to Manhattan. We outer-borough residents already receive inferior city services compared to Manhattan.

There are insufficient disincentives to discourage drivers coming from Westchester, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Long Island to forgo travel to Manhattan by car; most would receive a credit for tolls paid, and would only pay an additional $2.00 to enter the congestion zone. Do you really think that a $2.00 charge will stop drivers from coming? There are no incentives in the plan for the use of hybrid vehicles and other, non-polluting and alternative methods of transportation (how about eliminating sales tax on bicycles and helmets?). Only those who live within the congestion zone will benefit from improved air quality—those who live in neighborhoods outside the zone, who already suffer disproportionately higher rates of asthma and COPD due to high concentrations of particulate matter will continue to do so—the rates of asthma and COPD may even rise. As New York City has the highest rate of asthma in the United States and the Hunts Point neighborhood in the Bronx has the highest asthma rate in the world, I, and many others find this green-wash solution completely unacceptable.

New York City residents have the lowest car-ownership rates in the area, and account for the lowest percentage of drivers in Manhattan, yet the lion’s share of costs of this plan will inequitably fall on them.

I will not go into all the alternatives here, but many spoke out to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, including myself, and that testimony is part of the record, and I urge you to read all of it—there are many excellent suggestions, most of which were ignored by the commission.

Please read my report on Traffic and Mass Transit in New York City, which I originally sent to Governor Spitzer in May of 2007, but I ask you to also read the letter to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, which also appears here:

http://bettertransitny.blogspot.com/2008/01/trafc-and-mass-transit-in-new-york-city.html

I also request that you read my other posts, too.

I’d like to point out that 40% of the City Council did not approve of this plan, and I would like to say, once again, that drastic reforms at the MTA (ignored in the plan) are necessary if congestion pricing is to be an effective means of reducing congestion, pollution and improving the quality of life for all New Yorkers, both upstate and down. Driver reform is also entirely necessary, and is also completely ignored in the current plan.

Please, don't buy into the current plan. Note that City Councilmember and Environmental Committee Chair James F. Gennaro voted against this proposal—he's well aware that this is a bogus bill that will only increase the tax burden on outer-borough residents, and will fail in providing the promised benefits of decreased pollution and traffic that we city residents deserve. It will only decrease congestion in select neighborhoods (if at all) while increasing pollution in most other areas, will only marginally improve mass transit; again, only in a few places, and will not benefit the majority of New York City residents. Write your state assemblymember, your state senator, Senator Bruno, Assemblymember Silver, and Governor Patterson, and let them know we need a real plan that benefits all the residents of New York City.

"...an opportunity to create a real five-borough plan has been missed..."—Councilmember Leroy G. Comrie, Jr.'s comments

I am very disappointed that this body was not able to come together to develop a real plan to help all New York City residents deal with the issues of congestion and health. The lack of outreach was evident and an opportunity to create a real five-borough plan has been missed. In my opinion, the residents of Queens will be unfairly taxed by the current congestion plan.

As a long-time member of this body — as an elected official and as a staffer — over the past 20 years I’ve heard numerous promises made by several administrations regarding improved public transportation and capital improvements in Queens, which were never delivered. And despite the assurances of this administration, I’ve seen nothing that will assure me that the projected benefits of this congestion plan will ever be delivered upon.

We have no control of the M.T.A.’s capital budget- they can change it whenever they want to. Several years ago, when the M.T.A. took over the private bus lines in Queens, there were promises made for additional express bus services. We still haven’t seen them. And the M.T.A.’s inability to open their real financial books to the public only reaffirms my belief that the people of Queens will be paying into a system that places executive perks over real transportation improvements. I have absolutely no faith in M.T.A. to be honest with New Yorkers.

I want to applaud my colleagues who stood against this plan, especially my colleague from Brooklyn, Council Member Lew Fidler. Real leadership comes not when you are agreeing with majority- that’s the easy part -but when you dissent as minority, based on your principles and your belief that what you do and how you vote is a true reflection of the community you serve.

Today, I cast my vote for the residents of Queens, who this evening will be packed like sardines on the E train to Jamaica Center. Who will be frustrated sitting in traffic on the Grand Central. Our economy is in recession and the mortgage crisis now threatens to erode the entire Southeast Queens community. Our federal government has seen fit to bail out billion dollar Wall Street firms, while real families in this City are losing homes and jobs. And the message from this Council, in the midst of this crisis, is to impose another tax. We are unwilling to raise taxes on the wealthy, but see fit to continue pricing working class residents out of the City.

I will not in good conscience vote in favor of this plan.

The Lease

In light of the fact that New York City leases the tunnels, elevated lines, stations and tracks of the subway system to New York City Transit, and in light of the fact that that lease may be rescinded with a years' notice, I would suggest that specific capital improvements and improvements in operations and management, designated by the New York City Council, be made a part of the lease requirements; we citizens of New York City need not be held hostage by the MTA. The requirement that 100% of the funds generated by any congestion plan must be dedicated to system improvements could also be made part of the lease agreement. These provisions should be an integral part of any congestion pricing implementation; the Fed's offer of $354 million for express buses will not provide enough benefit to offset the harm that will be caused by congestion pricing in its present form.

Council Hearings on Congestion Mitigation

Tomorrow, Monday, March 24, 2008, the New York City Council will conduct an oversight hearings on the New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission's recently approved congestion pricing proposal.

The first session, beginning at 10AM, will feature "expert" testimony.

The second session, which begins at 6PM, invites comments from the public.

Please attend and show your support for congestion mitigation and transit improvements, but let the council know that the current plan is the wrong plan. The hearings will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Tell Governor Patterson that this is the wrong plan!

Congestion pricing: it's the right solution, but this wrong model has big problems.

This is exceedingly difficult to write, as I fully support congestion pricing in theory, but the current plan is wrong for New York City, and wrong for New York State. Here, briefly, are some of the biggest problems:

• There is no "lockbox"; the MTA plans to dedicate only 15% of revenues to capital improvements

• The current plan penalizes outer-borough residents while PA, NJ commuters and
Manhattanites living within the congestion zone get a free pass

• Improvements to mass transit are not in place, and the planned improvements are inadequate

• The current plan doesn't address the lack of traffic enforcement, one of the leading causes of traffic congestion

• The current plan doesn't address New York City Transit's woefully well-documented and historic inefficiencies

• Manhattan isn't the only place in NYC with horrendous congestion; Bloomberg's plan will increase congestion in poor neighborhoods with high asthma rates

• The current plan doesn't offer incentives for hybrid vehicles

• Even the mayor admits that traffic will probably NOT be reduced by 6% with the current plan, yet a 6% reduction is required to obtain the Federal DOT grant of $354 million

We need vastly improved mass transit to make congestion pricing effective; Theodore Kheel's plan, while still not perfect, is a much better plan than Mike Bloomberg's, and it makes mass transit free. Please read some of my earlier posts; then, email your city council member, your state senator, Sheldon Silver (speaker@assembly.state.ny.us) and Governor David Patterson, and insist that they provide a better congestion plan that addresses all of these issues.

Transportation Committee Chairman wants guarantees

Yesterday's Daily News featured an op-ed piece from John C. Liu, City Council Member and head of the Transportation Committee. Mr. Liu rightly suggests that the revenues generated by congestion pricing be dedicated to funding improvements to mass transit, and that those funds be protected from raids by present and future legislators; the "lockbox" concept.

He further requests that these funds be additive: "Second, the money must be additive in terms of overall transportation funding, not an excuse for future governors, mayors and legislators to cut MTA funding by an amount equal to congestion pricing proceeds.” and goes on to suggest that the City Council, along with the State Legislature, create a list of transit improvements towards which spending will be directed.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Liu's proposals, but ask that he, and his fellow City Council Members re-examine the "workable framework" provided by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, and see if they cannot recommend further improvements to the plan—specifically, I'd like to alleviate the disproportionate impact upon city residents, and add more disincentives to those non-residents who regularly drive in—see my report, speech and letter to the commission on Traffic and Transit in New York City, posted on January 5th.

http://bettertransitny.blogspot.com/2008/01/trafc-and-mass-transit-in-new-york-city.html

Higher congestion fees for out-of-city residents and discounts for city residents would help, and would encourage those city residents who currently register their cars out of state (perhaps as many as 1 in 4 outer-borough residents) to register their vehicles correctly.

I'd also ask that the funding be directed only to New York City Transit capital improvements, and not to the MTA. In addition, I would suggest that the council form a citizens oversight committee, to review and make changes to proposed spending by New York City Transit—NYCT has a history of spending far too much too obtain too little, and correcting this, too, should be part of congestion pricing. (See my posts "A culture of waste and inefficiency", from February 6th, and "Concrete flooring for the subways", from February 1st for some examples of NYCT waste.)

Finally, I stress once more that increased traffic enforcement, and a portion of the revenues generated thereby, is an essential element not only of any congestion-pricing initiative, but is necessary to ensure a civil society, and ask that the City Council incorporate this into their final recommendations to the State Assembly.

A culture of arrogance and obfuscation

Here is a verbatim transcription of a recent complaint filed with the New York City Transit Authority regarding bad service on the Q39 bus line in Queens. You will note that I've asked two very specific questions; also note that the reply answers neither of them directly—it skirts the issue instead. Just another example of the overwhelming arrogance that is pervasive within the MTA. We riders don't want another useless apology, we want the problems to be addressed and fixed.

Customer (Cameron Williams) - 01/31/2008 03:50 PM
Why are these buses (Q39) allowed to leapfrog each other, without regard to the printed schedule? I've seen four of these buses arrive within the space of three minutes—then no buses at all for 45 minutes.

Is this a concession you've made to the TWU? (i.e., if a driver finishes his/her route ahead of schedule, they get a break until their next scheduled run.)

If not, what's your justification?

Inadequate (and canned) response that doesn't answer the specific questions.

Response (Helen Castiglia) - 02/05/2008 09:43 AM
Dear Mr. Williams:

I am writing in response to your e-mail regarding the Q-39 bus route.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. Despite our best efforts to maintain regularly scheduled service, delays and service diversions can sometimes occur for a variety of reasons.

Therefore, in response to your concerns, with respect to multiple buses arrivng at the same time, this is usually an indication that a problem or obstruction occurred along the route which backs up the buses. Once the obstruction clears and buses resume a normal flow into traffic, they begin to catch up with one another thus resulting in a "bunching" or "piggyback" effect. Despite our best eforts to maintain regularly sheduled service, delays and service disruptions can sometimes occur for a variety of reasons.

If you have any future bus related concerns, please call our Customer Service Department at (718) 445-3100 Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.

Sincerely,

Helen Castiglia
Customer Service Department
MTA Bus Company

A culture of waste and inefficiency

Recently, (my post of February 1) I wrote about the use of innovative concrete construction which would allow the transit authority to obtain all the benefits of granite or ceramic tiles, while enjoying the cost savings inherent in using concrete. By using other innovative materials and employing fresh thinking, similar savings could be made throughout the system, e.g., composite plastic railroad ties can be substituted for toxic creosote-treated wood, with better performance and lower cost—yet there is no push for this, only the same old familiar refrain of "we need more money". Please bear in mind that it's your money they're asking for.

This narrow-mindedness is pervasive throughout the MTA. A few months back, their knee-jerk reaction to the "lack of cleanliness" noted in the "Rider Report Cards" was to immediately hire an additional 300 cleaners. Have you noticed how much cleaner the cars are since then? I thought not. But there is now another substantial drain on transit resources. A more prudent approach would have been to evaluate the efficiency of the cleaners already employed, then take steps to maximize their effectiveness. I've watched the cleaners at the Coney Island terminus, and they tend to miss every other piece of litter.

Again and again, one finds that the solutions to problems implemented by transit officials invariably adds another layer of cost to the system. Why? The answer seems to be that executives don't advance their careers within the MTA by saving money; they advance by devising grandiose plans which garner publicity. Unfortunately, that approach cheats the taxpayers and riders.

Since it's our money these authorities are spending, I would ask that the MTA adopt the philosophy of Occam's Razor, a well-known principal used successfully by scientists throughout the world. Stated as succinctly as possible, it is: "When confronted by a problem with multiple solutions, the simplest is usually correct." Remember folks, that's "simplest", not "costliest".

Today is primary day—Vote

Subway Song

Thank you for being our victim this evening
We're New York City Transit

If you need a train or must take a bus
You. Gotta. Depend on us.

We don't give a damn
And we don't give a hoot
Complain all you want
But we got your loot

Thank you for being our victim tonight
We're the transit authority—thass right

Yeah, your commute might take half the day
That's right, we're a part of the MTA

We don't care
If you ever get home
We got you to work
So don't bitch & moan

Thank you so much for being patient
We're New York City Transit

A man was caught riding while dead
You too might be late—plan ahead

What's wrong with congestion pricing?

The following paragraphs, in italics, would be a suitable letter to send to Christine Quinn, Speaker of the City Council, John C. Liu, head of the Transportation Committee, James F. Gennaro, head of the Environmental Protection Committee, Peter F. Vallone, Jr., head of the Public Safety Committee, and to your Council representative. Please act today.

While I support congestion pricing, the Manhattan-centric approach endorsed by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission will actually harm most New York City residents (the presumed beneficiaries), and will not provide revenues sufficient to support the necessary improvements to mass transit that increased ridership demands.

New York City residents should not have to pay a toll to travel within their own city, they already pay more than their fair share of infrastructure and maintenance costs; the costs of congestion pricing should be borne by those drivers who travel to the city from Long Island, Westchester, Connecticut and New Jersey, who are arguably better off financially than the majority of outer-borough residents, and finally, and perhaps most importantly, congestion relief must apply to all five boroughs—we are one city.

Horrific traffic throughout the city contributes to the particulate pollution that has caused New York City to have the highest rate of asthma in the United States; Hunts Point, in the South Bronx has the highest asthma rate in the world. The current congestion pricing plan will actually increase outer borough traffic, causing greater harm to those already disproportionately affected.

In consideration of these facts, I ask that you review the testimony submitted to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, and devise and submit to the State Assembly a plan that benefits all New York City residents.

Concrete flooring for the subways

Pete Donohue of the New York Daily News again reported on flooring disagreements within the MTA; Howard Roberts, NYC Transit President, and NYCT spokesman Paul Fleuranges claim that concrete can't be polished or kept clean; while William Henderson, executive director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA wants "...officials to deal with this issue."

Finally, Gene Russianoff of the Straphanger's Campaign compared the charm of concrete to that of a fallout shelter, claiming that, "Cleaner, brighter tile floors are more welcoming and feel more secure."

As cost factors indicate the use of concrete rather that granite, or ceramic tiles, all of these gentlemen need to acquaint themselves with modern concrete treatments and construction methods. We can use concrete and have beautiful public spaces; a little research and creativity are all that's needed. The picture at left, from Kemiko Concrete Stain of Leonard, Texas, is of a stained and polished concrete floor and merely gives a hint of what is possible.

Critical Mass for cars?

What if, on an agreed upon day, 1,000 drivers were to strategically position themselves in groups of 50 cars at 20 major thoroughfares throughout the city, occupy each lane of those thoroughfares, and proceed to obey the speed limits and all other regulations; i.e., not blocking the box, full stops at stop signs, etc.? Bullying SUV drivers who'd like to pass and drive 20 mph above the posted limits would be blocked. With full gas tanks, and another 1,000 relief drivers, this civilizing action could affect both morning and evening commutes. We'd certainly slow traffic down somewhat, and the police couldn't say any laws were being broken; their hands would be tied. In addition, this would be an irresistible story to the press; we'd get massive coverage from every major media outlet. What's the argument, that there's a basic right to break the law? I'd like to organize this and make it happen; if you'd like to participate, email me here. This would definitely get attention—and produce results.

Death tally for 2007

Reported by Kirsten Davis in yesterday's Daily News, the traffic death tally for 2007 was 271 in New York City.

136 pedestrians were killed.

77 drivers and passengers were killed.

23 bicyclists were killed.

35 motorcyclists were killed.

The report failed to mention how many times charges were filed. Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said, "We're going to do whatever we can to make those streets less intimidating and less chaotic.", and I thank her for her efforts—much remains to be done.

Tiles too expensive

Yesterday, Pete Donohue of the New York Daily News reported that various officials within the MTA and New York City Transit have admitted that the granite, terazzo or ceramic tiles used in station rehabilitations are far too expensive—$1.7 million per station for granite, and $1.4 million for ceramic—vs $421,000.00 per station for concrete.

And concrete needn't be ugly, as claimed by MTA board member Andrew Albert. There are new, textured and colored concrete flooring options available, and environmentally friendly recycled shredded tires embedded in resin could also be used. Both options were mentioned in my report on traffic and transit (see post of January 5th) written in May of last year. Apparently, the MTA board is unaware of these options. Please write to them and let them know.

Street Renaissance and City Council addresses

I'd like to congratulate all the people from Street Renaissance for their successful and informative reception, held last night at the New York Historical Society. I'll post on this later today.

Here are important email addresses and committee members for the New York City Council. These three committees, and their members, have the greatest influence within the council on matters of traffic and transit. Please write to all of these committees to give them your opinions regarding congestion pricing. The conclusions of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission are not necessarily the final arbiters of legislative action; but the time is now to make your voices heard. I'll also be posting State Assembly member addresses in the next few days—a final vote is due by March 31, 2008. For individual council member email addresses, visit:

http://council.nyc.gov/html/home/home.shtml

Transportation committee

Email: liu@council.nyc.ny.us

Committee Members
Chairperson: John C. Liu
Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr.
Daniel R. Garodnick
Vincent Ignizio
G. Oliver Koppell
Jessica S. Lappin
Miguel Martinez
Michael E. McMahon
Darlene Mealy
Diana Reyna
Larry B. Seabrook


Environmental Protection Committee

Email: gennaro@council.nyc.ny.us

Committee Members
Chairperson: James F. Gennaro
Bill de Blasio
Mathieu Eugene
Vincent Ignizio
G. Oliver Koppell
Melissa Mark Viverito
Domenic M. Recchia, Jr.
Peter F. Vallone, Jr.
Thomas White, Jr.


Public Safety Committee

Email: vallonejr@council.nyc.ny.us

Oversight: Police Department, Courts, District Attorneys, Special Narcotics Prosecutor, Civilian Complaint Review Board, Department of Juvenile Justice, Criminal Justice Coordinator, Office of Emergency Management, and Organized Crime Control Commission.

Committee Chairperson Peter F. Vallone, Jr.

District Office Address
22-45 31st Street., Astoria, Astoria, New York, 11105
Phone: (718) 274-4500
Fax Phone No.: (718) 726-0357

Legislative Office Address
250 Broadway, 17th Floor, 10007
Phone: (212) 788-6963
Fax Phone No.: (212) 788-8957

Committee Members
Chairperson: Peter F. Vallone, Jr.
Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr.
Erik Martin Dilan
Helen D. Foster
Daniel R. Garodnick
James F. Gennaro
Vincent J. Gentile
Melinda R. Katz
Hiram Monserrate
James S. Oddo
David Yassky

An Upper West Side Story

As I'm attending a meeting tonight relating to traffic on the Upper West Side, I thought this anecdote might be informative.

In 1992, I was living in a building on the corner of Columbus Avenue and West 77th Street. One morning, I left to hail a cab at about 5:45 AM. If you're familiar with the neighborhood, you know that at that time, hundreds of cabbies race down Columbus Avenue en masse, at speeds approaching 60 mph., resembling nothing so much as a school of bright yellow sharks in search of prey. (This behavior can also be seen downtown, where Church Street becomes Sixth Avenue.)

Anyway, I extended my hand to hail a cab, and, in their haste to get a fare, three cabbies collided in front of me, doing considerable damage to their cars. I calmly got the next cab, who happened not to be speeding, and left them to their angry recriminations.

We need driver reform—why don't we get it?

I apologize for not posting here for a week; I've been too busy at work. During that week, Theodore Kheel released his report and recommendations for congestion pricing and free mass transit, available here as a PDF download:

http://www.blognetnews.com/New_York/feed.php?channel=70&iid=78439&order=c

It was also a week that saw a software CEO mow down a woman in downtown Manhattan. He was admittedly doing 60 mph. on city streets, where the speed limit is 30. Unfortunately, there's nothing at all unusual about that.

As I mentioned earlier, I've been driving a friend's car to work. Drivers routinely travel at 50 mph on city streets. The good folks at Transit Alternatives have used radar guns to clock them. I know it. You know it. The NYPD knows it. But nothing is done. When was the last time there was a crackdown on speeders, two years ago? And the crackdown lasted an entire week.

We should have reached what Malcolm Gladwell calls "The Tipping Point" long ago, as a matter of fact, on December 7, 2006, when little Andy Vega's life was cut short. A truck driver on Third Avenue in Brooklyn, underneath the Gowanus Expressway, was speeding (by his own admission), trying to make a light before it changed. He missed it, but decided to run the red light (again, his own admission), and ran little Andy down. As usual, no charges were filed.

Why are we willing to accept this? Why are we not outraged? Do we, our police and elected officials see our dangerous streets as a normal cost of doing business? Or are we just inured to the carnage? What will it take to change attitudes? 40% of all traffic fatalities are caused by drunk drivers—the other 60% are caused by bad drivers. It took twenty years, but we finally did something about the drunks. It may take another twenty, but we must do something about the rest.

The Daily News questioned cabbies about the undercover sting operation, and one, quite angry, claimed it was text messages that caused accidents, not talking on cell phones (as he continued to talk on his cell). Numerous studies have proved that hands-free or hand held, cell phones are a distraction.

One last item before I go to work, a report I filed yesterday with the MTA about an exceedingly poor driver in their employ:

January 27, 2008, 3:00 PM

Belt Parkway, parking lot entrance immediately before Exit 5

I was about to exit at exit 5, when the Access-A-Ride driver, plate number 63714-LA, who was standing at the entrance to the parking area which precedes the exit, re-entered traffic on the Belt Parkway—without signaling or gaining the proper speed. I had to slam on the brakes, and was nearly rear ended by the driver behind me. To add insult to injury, the Access-A-Ride driver proceeded to take the exit, which he could have done safely by simply proceeding through the parking area. Drivers as amateurish as this one do not belong on the road, and certainly should not have responsibility for passengers.

MTA Reference: \'080127-000024\'

A couple of transit jokes

Q. How many TWU members does it take to change a light bulb?

A. That's not in their job description.


Not just anyone can work for New York City Transit; there are stringent requirements.
First, you've gotta fail an IQ test.

Perspective

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission held their final public hearing this past Wednesday evening, and once again heard the public's many objections to the proposed plans. No matter, they've already decided what their recommendations will be. Rather than using this golden opportunity to produce a comprehensive road map to our city's future, a road map that addresses all the necessary reforms needed throughout our complex transportation system, they've decided to do the least amount of planning possible to obtain the $354 million offered by the Federal DOT. A competent job, and nothing more.

But why now? What about all the previous years where the city failed to qualify for federal transportation grants due to a chronic inability to meet the standards of the Federal Clean Air Act? We've heard no heartfelt mea culpas regarding these lost dollars, and in aggregate, the amount lost is in the tens of billions.

This week alone, we received MTA reports that informed us that budget overruns for implementing the thousand-camera surveillance system will drive the cost to $450 million, and that the drastically reduced-in-scope downtown transportation hub's price is now approaching $900 million. That's 1.35 billion dollars for business as usual—suddenly, the $354 million doesn't seem like such a big deal.

It's not—it's just a foot in the door, and once again, our public officials are not quite being completely honest with us—these plans weren't designed to benefit all the citizens of the city and the region, but were designed mainly at the behest of the Partnership for New York City, based in downtown Manhattan, chiefly to benefit the multi-national businesses of which that entity is comprised.

Now I've got nothing against helping these businesses; they do, after all, help us all pay our bills, and their continued well-being is in all our best interests. But as long as these transportation issues are on the table, we should demand of our government a more comprehensive transportation plan that accomplishes all of the following:

• Increases service, with reductions in crowding and travel times on public transportation

• Changes the culture of the MTA to put riders first

• Reduces vehicular traffic and particulate pollution in all 5 boroughs and the entire downstate region—that New York City has the highest asthma rate in the United States is shameful, and must be aggressively addressed

• Increases enforcement of all existing traffic laws

• Produces both local and national campaigns to increase driver responsibility

• Dedicates funding (a lockbox) for mass transit

• Expands access to public transportation for those city neighborhoods not served

• Provides incentives to promote the use of alternate transportation, from hybrid vehicles to bicycles

A plan that shoots for these goals is a winner, and would improve the economy and quality of life for all New Yorkers. It could happen, but only if we demand it.