Some other things we could do to reduce traffic and improve transit; most without State approval

• 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.

• Impose a $1,000 per year tax surcharge on passenger vehicles registered within the city that get less than 25 mpg/city.

• 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!

And there's so much more that can be done—please post your ideas!

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".

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.

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.

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\'

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.

Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill

I have a confession. A friend of mine left his car with me, and I've been driving to work for the past week. A 38-minute commute, as opposed to a nearly two-hour one, proved to be a temptation impossible to resist.

However, as I've noted before, almost nobody observes, much less obeys the rules of the road. Drivers fail to signal, fail to stay in lanes, fail to stop at stop signs; they blow red lights, (I was almost T-boned by a driver running a red light on Tuesday morning) and, worst of all, most travel between 15 and 20 mph over the speed limit, whenever possible. So, while my commute time was reduced, my tension level was ratcheted WAY up.

Here's what I don't understand. Why do the police, and our various public officials involved, fail to enforce the laws? It's as though all our elected officials, and nearly the entire NYPD, (I did see one highway patrol officer stop an especially egregious speeder) feel that motorists should get a free pass. If the laws were enforced, the revenues collected would far surpass those proposed for congestion pricing, so why don't we act on this? Enforcement could increase revenues, make our streets safer, lower insurance rates, improve traffic flow (by reducing accidents) and encourage some to use mass transit. So why not?

Transit Waste Alert Level Red

Pete Donohue of the New York Daily News reported yesterday that the cost of installing 1,000 surveillance cameras at key points throughout the transit system has ballooned to an estimated $450 million dollars. The planned system, begun in 2005, is now almost $100 million over budget, and expected to be seven months late, not coming on line until August of this year. As there are now only 300 of the cameras installed, and no command center as of yet, I'd say further delays and budget overruns are a safe bet.

In a world not gone mad, keeping us safe from terrorists would be the province of the State Department, the military, Homeland Security, and the NYPD, not the bunch of bureaucratic buffoons at MTA headquarters. The dollar amount, you will note, is $96 million more than the Feds have promised us for implementing congestion pricing—does that make you feel safe?

It would make a lot more sense to use cameras to guard against fare beaters, and deploy more NYPD officers on the trains and station platforms, where they could not only guard against terrorists, but could also enforce New York City Transit's "Code of Conduct", making for a safer and pleasanter ride for all of us. Don't hold your breath.

Tree-lined streets of death

It was an early afternoon in May of 1997. My daughter's boyfriend and I were walking east on 20th Street; we were between Park Avenue South and Gramercy Park West, when an ambulance, siren wailing, turned on to 20th Street, obviously trying to reach Cabrini Medical Center, a block and a half away. But it couldn't make any progress because cars kept turning from Gramercy Park West on to 20th Street—the stop sign made no difference, the cars kept coming, simply ignoring the ambulance.

Out of frustration, I imagine, the ambulance driver began to blare his horn, his siren still on. Still, the cars kept turning. I could see by the ambulance driver's face that this was really an emergency, so I ran into the intersection and physically blocked the next vehicle, a white delivery van with a Chinese driver, who cursed at me and tried to proceed anyway.

By that time, I'd had enough—I reached into the van, grabbed the driver by his collar, and yelled at him, "That could be your fuckin' mother in there! What the fuck is wrong with you?". I held him there until the ambulance passed.

Then I finally I wondered where the police were, after all, the Police Academy, presumably full of the finest, is also on the next block. But ultimately, the NYPD is responsible for the bad behavior of New York's drivers—they've opted out of enforcing traffic laws—too difficult, too much time in court, and it slows down traffic. Nothing has changed since that incident over ten years ago, if anything, the situation has worsened. The brass sees traffic enforcement as a lose-lose proposition with no opportunity for praise in the press, and many of the citizens who might complain are dead pedestrian victims, victims for whom no charges were filed.

Now, congestion pricing might result in fewer motorists, but it will do nothing to improve the quality of those motorists—that's something that remains to be addressed, and something for which I will continue to fight.

Last public congestion-pricing hearing

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission has decided to choose from the following list for making their recommendations to the New York City Council and New York State Assembly at the end of this month.

• Charge cars $8 and trucks $21 to drive into Manhattan below 86th Street on weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.;

• Change the entry boundary to 60th Street but add more roads to the area covered east and west;

• Enact tolls at all the East and Harlem river crossings, inbound and outbound, 24 hours a day;

• Ration car entry by license plate, banning vehicles from entering Manhattan below 86th Street one day per week, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., or

• Raise prices for street and garage parking, reduce the number of parking placards used by city government employees and put a surcharge on taxi trips into the designated congestion zone.

While all of these proposals hold some merit, and meet the Federal requirement for a 6.3% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and for a fee-based plan, they fall short of the commission's mandate to also address other related health and safety issues within the City of New York.

I, and many others still believe that these approaches will cause undue harm to residents of the outer boroughs while providing inadequate improvements to mass transit. Asthma rates in New York City (which means all of the boroughs, not just Manhattan), are the highest in the United States; the asthma rate in Hunt's Point is the highest in the world. The federal government requires merely a reduction of traffic in the central business district, but our children's health cries out for an overall reduction in traffic throughout the five boroughs.

None of these plans offer sufficient disincentives to discourage drivers from Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Connecticut to change their habits—indeed, the Mayor's plan would make Hudson River entry points free, now that the Port Authority has announced that it will raise their tolls to $8.00.

In short, outer-borough residents who must travel by car will be penalized, out-of-state residents will benefit from reduced traffic, while children (except for those lucky tykes within the congestion zone) will continue to suffer from respiratory diseases at unacceptable rates.

It is necessary for the City and State to adopt a workable plan by March 31, 2008 to be eligible for the federal funding offer of $354 million, but putting in place a more ambitious plan that benefits the residents of all boroughs is still possible.

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission will be holding one last public hearing before making its final recommendations to the New York City Council and New York State Assembly on January 31, 2008. The hearing is scheduled for 4PM, Wednesday, January 16, 2008, at Hunter College Auditorium—Hunter College, East 68th St. between Park & Lexington Avenues. You may register to speak until 1PM on the day of the hearing. You may register here:

https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/programs/congestion_mitigation_commission

And you may also email the commission at that site. I urge all concerned citizens to attend, or to write.

Outer boroughs might as well be outer space

Tomorrow, the congestion pricing committee will vote, and each of the four plans they've decided to vote on remain Manhattan-based, to the detriment of those of us who live in the other four boroughs. I've spent plenty of money contacting these committee members, registering to speak, paying for postage, etc., and will continue to work hard to advance an open dialog on these issues.

I, and many others, including Council Members Lew Fidler and Letitia James, spoke out against this wrong-headed approach, apparently to no avail. Likewise, there has been insufficient press coverage of the traffic mitigation and congestion pricing issue, and basically no public dialog. This does not a healthy democracy make. Therefore, I am asking you to write your own viewpoints concerning traffic and transit in New York City—and to make them known to each member of the City Council and State Assembly.

Please read my report, speech, and letter to the congestion mitigation committee,
and tell me that you think these issues are unimportant—I don't think you will; these are probably the most important issues facing the city—far too important to be ignored.

There are many issues to be addressed here, and the solutions I propose are not necessarily the best solutions; but the astounding lack of public discussion of these issues is causing serious harm to our fair city. We, the people, are not being heard, and we are not well represented by silence.

I thank you for any help, comments, or suggestions you have to offer.

NYCT Bus sale

Pete Donohue of the NY Daily News reported yesterday that New York City Transit is putting three New Flyer Viking express buses up for auction; they had originally been purchased in 1999 for evaluation.

Here's my question: Why are we purchasing buses for evaluation? I would think that NYCT, as the largest transit agency in the country, would have enough clout to be able to evaluate equipment at the manufacturer's expense, rather than at the taxpayer's, wouldn't you? This sounds like yet another example of the rampant waste that has long been a hallmark of the MTA's operations.