Gothamist: Congestion Pricing, Bloomberg's Voldemort

scott

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:36:57 -0500

What about all the small busynesses that are going to lose customers? Fact is a lot of folks will just no longer come to the city.

alex

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:30:17 -0500

If the money could go towards improving public transit, I am all for it.

Still Not Amused

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:59:03 -0500

I like the idea, The question is can it work here ? Keep in mind that the city is where the money is made . Start adding toll and you might effect the bottom line . It's nice to see Bloomy using that business savvy of his too make money . The problem with that picture, Now that's something else . I agree with poster #[63] as far as making Elephants walk on asphalt . There feet are made for rough terrain not smooth surfaces . That contributes too arthritis in the knee's, & feet .

jason

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:23:38 -0500

i for one cant wait for this... its another step in getting rid of the rif-raff in manhattan. they should get rid of public housing next. It will be great to be able to cruise the city in my toyota land cruiser and without the traffic and in style. eat it suckers.

you're beyond help

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:52:48 -0500

The government could "discourage" smoking tomorrow by making it illegal. Instead they apply a wholly unfair tax to it because most people will support it because it doesn't affect them, and people who are thoroughly addicted have to pay it. That's why I said the tax is equal parts about reducing smoking and raising revenue - not all one or the other. The government is splitting the difference because they know making anything illegal doesn't work AND deprives them of revenue. That's the left wing logic behind legalizing pot: you can't stop illegal trade so you might as well make some tax money on it. FACT: smoking is on the decline. Do you really think it's all because of those neat little warning labels and lack of advertising?

Li

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:27:35 -0500

AHHH HA HA HA HA HA!!! Elephants using the easy pass!!! Hil-arious!! So hysterically funny! Would it be so witty, do ya think, if you knew that forcing an elephant to walk on asphalt is like putting a chain around a man's neck and dragging him from the back of an F-150? Not so funny now, is it?

k*

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:17:35 -0500

#57: Actually, it affects all of us a great deal. What's more, it affects those of us who actually LIVE in the city a lot more than it affects people with cars. You can doubt the potential benefits of a congestion charge on our quality of life (and they are many, if experiences elsewhere are to be believed), but I don't think it makes sense to say it doesn't affect us at all.

anonymass

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:54:35 -0500

I like how you deal with issues that you dislike, Spud. "It's a non-starter." Well, in a year or two when we're discussing this again because it is about to be implemented, I hope you'll come back and eat some crow. Private ownership of tollroads is a growing trend. I wanted to post a link to some new toll roads in California, but Gothamist is preventing me from doing so.

Spud Spudly

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:13:18 -0500

New York City's streets are an essential public resource that we all pay for with our taxes. Any law that prevents people from driving on them should affect everyone equally, reagardless of how much money they have. Financial barriers won't stop the wealthy from driving -- it will only stop those who can't afford to pay. BTW, it's not just the poor but also the middle class who will be affected. It has nothing to do with these people not driving to work because sometimes they do have reasons to drive into Manhattan -- and yes, they often do have cars. I don't give a damn about the toll on the NJ Turnpike. And I agree with someone who said earlier that tolls on bridges and tunnels were supposed to have expired long ago. I also don't give a shit if anyone thinks it's a utopian dream. And I already wake up in Manhattan every day, so it really doesn't affect me. But if all the geniuses in this town can't come up with a more democratic system for reducing traffic then pricing out the poor and middle class then it's a sad, sad day indeed. But it doesn't matter anyway because this is a political non-starter. If it serves to ramp up the debate on how to solve congestion then great, but this issue is DOA.

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:02:48 -0500

But it does beg the question: if you have a 1 mile trip to the grocery store in the suburbs, why not walk or take a bicycle? You don't have to live in the city to walk and with a cart you can still carry a lot of groceries. My mom does it in the suburbs. Totally fair point. Myself, I would (and I used to before there was one close to me) during the summer... but in the winter I would most likely drive. Pushing said cart of groceries through the snow in the cold would really, really suck.

lolwhat

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:58:52 -0500

#50: Tax bikes equally? You're missing the whole point of the congestion charge. Bikes don't hog the road (well, aside from Critical Mass) and they don't spew asthma-inducing particulates. There's also an argument to made that bicyclists don't degrade the quality of life as much as casual motorists. Also: tinyurl.com [slash] 2mfmd2

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:58:14 -0500

@Tom (49): According to everyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass. Try getting out of the house a little more if your flabby, drumstick-like non-gas pedal leg will allow it. Sorry, Chuckles. I live in the city and don't own a car. Crazy how you can be against something that doesn't affect you, huh? Way to show that you bring nothing to the discussion. I forgot to hop on the "Europe Is Better Then Us!!!11!" bandwagon. #50, bikes don't pollute. And while bike riders are certainly a safety hazard when they're wreckless, I don't think you could argue that they're responsible for congestion. I can think of at least one day a month where they are certainly responsible for congestion and are a safety hazard for not obeying the law. If they want to be treated the same as cars, treat them the same as cars. My point is more it's easy to be for banning something that annoys you. Everyone complains about the government being repressive... unless they're repressing something you don't like... then they're cool.

lolwhat

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:57:49 -0500

Tom, 50: Tax bikes equally? You're missing the whole point of the congestion charge. Bikes don't hog the road (well, aside from Critical Mass) and they don't spew asthma-inducing particulates. There's also an argument to made that bicyclists don't degrade the quality of life as much as casual motorists. Also: t i n y u r l . c o m / 2 m f m d 2

Mike

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:55:38 -0500

Tom, 52: Good point. It very well could include all of those short suburban trips on Long Island. Then again, I don't know how the survey was worded as to exclude or include those types of trips. But it does beg the question: if you have a 1 mile trip to the grocery store in the suburbs, why not walk or take a bicycle? You don't have to live in the city to walk and with a cart you can still carry a lot of groceries. My mom does it in the suburbs.

Mike

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:50:21 -0500

quoting 'tons o fun' #42 40, thats great for you, keep it up, do whatever you want, but please don't impose your belief system on others! Who's imposing? I thought this was a democracy. I advocate my position and lobby my councilman to represent me and my beliefs. You're free to do as you like as long as you don't hurt anybody. Clean air isn't just a quality of life issue...it's a health issue too.

Mog

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:49:33 -0500

#50, bikes don't pollute. And while bike riders are certainly a safety hazard when they're wreckless, I don't think you could argue that they're responsible for congestion. What point are you trying to make exactly? That bikes are as harmful as cars?

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:48:59 -0500

The survey covered 27,369 individuals in 11,264 households in the 28 county New York metro area and was designed to produce reliable measurements of weekday travel at the county level. Sample size is more than sufficient for reliable estimates of weekday travel to the Manhattan CBD as well. Mike: don't you think that would probably cover a whole lot of people on Long Island who drive to the super market, drop their kids off at school, or drive to a Metro-North/LIRR station parking lot? Thank you for the info, though.

Not Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:47:45 -0500

@Tom (49): According to everyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass. Try getting out of the house a little more if your flabby, drumstick-like non-gas pedal leg will allow it.

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:46:04 -0500

Here's another thought. I walk to work. I will only support this tax if it affects all vehicles equally, including bicycles.

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:43:44 -0500

London is overtaking New York in every way, from financial importance to creativity to quality of life. According to whom, that would be a fascinating article.

Mike

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:43:37 -0500

My apologies for saying the statistic was from an NYC traffic analysis...that statistic covers the entire NY Metro area.

Mike

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:41:45 -0500

41, tom: That statistic comes from a New York Metropolitan Transit Council survey in 1997-98. The survey covered 27,369 individuals in 11,264 households in the 28 county New York metro area and was designed to produce reliable measurements of weekday travel at the county level. Sample size is more than sufficient for reliable estimates of weekday travel to the Manhattan CBD as well.

Bob Cratchit

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:40:23 -0500

Hey, you ignorant fucks: POOR PEOPLE DON'T DRIVE CARS. I know this because I'm poor, and I don't own a car. Charge the rich fucks who just *have* to drive into the city, I say, and use the revenue to subsidize my bus to Manhattan. Hell, maybe I'd even live to see a subway in my nabe.

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:40:23 -0500

Isn't a bridge/tunnel toll sort of the same thing? Nobody seems to be complaining that that's unfair. They are wholly unfair, but when the government has it's hooks into a tax, they don't let a revenue stream go... ever. Tolls were supposed to end on the Thruway when the construction bond was paid off in 1997. Shockingly, they didn't. Toll roads are almost non-existent west of the Mississippi... because they never instated them.

Mog

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:37:43 -0500

Who says this would unfairly affect the poor? I would like to see some statistics on that- I find it hard to believe that many poor people drive to work in midtown. Do you have any idea how much it costs to park in most of Manhattan? And how much it costs to maintain a car in this city? I complain about MTA as much as anyone, but there's truly no excuse for anyone driving to work in lower Manhattan during the daytime unless they're physically handicapped or their job requires transporting heavy equipment. Even if you don't live walking-distance from a train station, I highly doubt that it's significantly faster to drive into the city at rush hour than it is to park near an express train out in your burrough. Maybe there are a small number of such cases, but the vast majority of commuting drivers are just lazy and selfish (and probably affluent to boot).

Why do you hate America?

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:26 -0500

Good grief. The noxious stupidity and refusal to think by opponents of congestion charging (here on Gothamist of all places!) are the reason London is overtaking New York in every way, from financial importance to creativity to quality of life.

tons o fun

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:32:50 -0500

40, thats great for you, keep it up, do whatever you want, but please don't impose your belief system on others!

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:30:32 -0500

According to a recent analysis of NYC traffic, 56% of all auto trips in NYC are 3 miles or less. I call shenanigans on that statistic unless you're counting the outer burough. And, if that's the case, congestion pricing will not change it.

Mike

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:26:11 -0500

33, tons o fun: The source is not streetsblog...it's an analysis from Schaller Consulting. I don't know what Schaller's bias is. I'm merely trying to let people know where I got those numbers from. 34, spud spudly: I'm not going to make up some numbers and expect people to simply believe them. Go to the source I refer to and make up your own mind. Parrot, huh? In that case here's what I think without quoting someone else's study, you _____...(well, I'll just leave the name calling to you since you're so good at it) Congestion pricing does affect people based on how much money they make, but not negatively. Most poor people would benefit financially and their outer borough neighborhoods would improve if they would give up their cars, stop paying auto insurance and start riding mass transit exclusively. (Disclaimer: I live in the Bronx, own a car, and make about $15/hour...I don't drive into the city, and I plan on getting rid of the car since it's a waste of time and money)

Tom

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:25:42 -0500

The goal is as much to discourage smoking as it is to raise money. If you really, truly believe that, you are beyond help. The government could "discourage" smoking tomorrow by making it illegal. Instead they apply a wholly unfair tax to it because most people will support it because it doesn't affect them, and people who are thoroughly addicted have to pay it. A flip side to this should be 24 hour service on all the commuter train lines into the city. That would end the argument that people have to drive in if they might work late and miss the last train out. However, it won't end the arguement that you don't want to get stabbed and robbed on the subway at midnight. Nor do you want to wait an hour for it to come. Nor do you want to take it to a station that might be further from your home than your office.

dork

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:24:38 -0500

seriously, do all of the anti-congestion-toll people here also want to eliminate fares on subways and buses? making the subways and buses free would be stupid. but all the anti-congestion-toll arguments posted above work just as well as anti-subway-fare arguments. #10--life on the subway would be easier without turnstiles. #18--what's with those "nannies" who want to us to pay per use for a valuable service like the A train or a paved, policed, and traffic-signaled 23rd Street? #20--why should poor people have to pay to ride the subway? #29--having to buy a metrocard "impedes my choice". and by the way, #26, if new yorkers want congestion pricing, why does Nanny Tim tell us we don't know what's best for us? if you don't like using market mechanisms to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of new yorkers, dont live in this urban environment, but let everyone else be.

anonymass

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:24:03 -0500

That's a sweet utopian thought, Spud Spudly, but please name another usage toll that scales according to the income/net worth of the user. Most people realize and understand that not having money is a liability and that there are consequences. Per Se should lower its price of a lamb chop for those who make less? Isn't a bridge/tunnel toll sort of the same thing? Nobody seems to be complaining that that's unfair. There are usage fees/tolls on roadways the world over. Shockingly, even "sophisticated" Europe has toll roads. NJ Turnpike, anyone? Is that regressive?

anonymass

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:23:36 -0500

drewo

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:22:51 -0500

Tim: do you also believe the nanny state should not subsidize oil companies to artificially keep the price of gasoline low? Subsidies like tax breaks, oil supply protection costs, oil industry subsidies, and health care costs of treating auto exhaust-related respiratory illnesses. The price of gas should really be about 4x the current price. That would be one way to get more automobiles off the street.

Spud Spudly

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:02:38 -0500

It's streetsblog.org, you parrot. But that still doesn't address the argument that congestion pricing only affects some people while not affecting others. Shouldn't any scheme to reduce the use of an essential resource not be predicated on how much money people have?

tons o fun

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:58:02 -0500

32... LOL, yeah a real unbiased source there.

Mike

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:52:29 -0500

I'm from NYC and am for congestion pricing. According to a recent analysis of NYC traffic, 56% of all auto trips in NYC are 3 miles or less. Those trips could easily be replaced by public transit, bicycles or even walking in many cases! And apparently "for the region as a whole, 80% of auto commuters have a transit option that would take no more than 15 minutes longer than their auto trip." So lots of these people driving into NYC don't need to be driving. Check out the "Bruce Schaller Profiles a 'City in Flux'" headline on Streetsblog .com to verify those stats.

Spud Spudly

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:44:50 -0500

I could support a program that affects people off all means equally. But any program that affects only the poor while leaving the rich untouched is wrong and I won't support it. Neither will New Yorkers. Dead in the water. How many times have we heard about tolls on the East River bridges? Any how many people have paid one of those tolls?

dhex

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:41:25 -0500

"why should it cost money to use the subway (a finite resource) but not the streets (another finite resource, and one that's hugely expensive to maintain, police, etc.)?" you don't pay taxes? we don't pay taxes?

todd

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:38:33 -0500

The reality is this wont get very far... its great that the readers here prob don't have cars, myself included, and are might lean toward supporting this, but it simply wont fly in the Burroughs where the majority of the voters are (and who by the way have already knocked this one down once before by a healthy margin). As for me, while I like the idea of less congestion in the city, I also don't like governments finding ways to impede peoples choices and adding to their burdens.

Toby

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:37:25 -0500

The whole idea of discounts for people who work in the zone is overlooking the point of the whole thing. You don't want the person in one car driving to work. The only exemptions should be for residents, the disabled, and carpools/vanpools. A flip side to this should be 24 hour service on all the commuter train lines into the city. That would end the argument that people have to drive in if they might work late and miss the last train out. An alternative would to have some sort of guaranteed ride home program for commuters. Other cities do it and Metro-North does it to a very limited extent for Pascack Valley Line customers, but there needs to be some sort on incentive like that to get people from not driving in the city.

do you have one?

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:31:53 -0500

I'm from New York and I am for the congestion pricing scheme. What's you point, Pete?

tim

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:31:44 -0500

excuse me #21, but we've paid for the roads out of the ridiculous amount of taxes that we pay every year to be in New York, so you equating paying for access to public streets and using mass transit make no sense. there are plenty of reasons why people have the right to drive into the city. A, as I've said, they have paid for the roads, B, they are brining family in, C, they need to commute from/to a place where public transport is difficult or not available, D, they are bringing someone in for medical care, E, they are afraid of subway system (which is more common than you might think), E, they are visting from out of town, F, they are shopping and need to bring back more than can be carried by hand, G, they are commuting out of the city where there is little or no public transport, etc, etc, etc. If you dont like traffic dont live in an urban environment, but let everyone else be.

do you have one?

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:30:33 -0500

I'm from New York and I am for the congestion pricing scheme. What's you point, Pete?

djcs

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:29:07 -0500

This is not really a freedom issue. Someone who speeds their SUV down a one lane street, or lays on the horn at a grid-locked intersection could be said to be infringing on the rights of the residents, pedestrians and cyclists around them. Freedom is not doing whatever you want, damn the man. It's finding the best possible compromise between individual desires and community good. As for this being a regressive tax, having a car in the city (even in the outer bouroughs) is a pretty major expense, and if you're driving into Manhattan for work, you're likely spending a good amount of money on tolls and parking as well. It stands to reason individuals who do this aren't the poorest of the poor. Biking, walking, and taking the train aren't nearly as costly as maintaining an automobile. The fact is that city streets weren't designed to handle the kind of traffic that exists today, and there are social costs to the way things run now (congestion, noise, pollution, accidents, etc.). Given the functional web of public transportation, there is no reason not to consider legislation that would limit private auto access to lower Manhattan, and would encourage people of all means to consider alternatives. I'm not saying Bloomberg's proposal is the answer, just that this is a conversation worth having.

pete

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:19:20 -0500

I'm curious as to how many people who are for the congestion pricing sheme, are actually from new york? How many people who read gothamist for that matter.

dork

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:13:42 -0500

tim -- does it "trample" on your "freedoms" when you have to pay to ride the subway? why should it cost money to use the subway (a finite resource) but not the streets (another finite resource, and one that's hugely expensive to maintain, police, etc.)? also, this is about using market-pricing to allocate a scare resource, which is a pretty damn American way to run NYC. anyway, if this cuts traffic jams, plumbers and other blue-collar workers can get to their next work site quicker and earn more money. everyone wins, except maybe some fatty boom-bahs who could really stand to walk more anyway.

adam

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:08:06 -0500

#18 tim: Driving a car on public streets is not a right or a guaranteed freedom. I realize that most Americans feel entitled to a V8 and open roads. That's what's most ludicrous. "traffic is part of life in a big city, people make that calculation when they decide to drive over mass transit" Please don't. It's bad for the air, the planet, and all the people you come in contact with.

Spud Spudly

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:01:20 -0500

The use of essential public resources should not be determined by how much someone can afford to pay. We should come up with a traffic reduction scheme that doesn't depend on money and which affects all people equally. Financial barriers are only barriers to people who can't afford to pay. This plan would weed out the poor and middle class while leaving the Donald Trumps (and Mike Bloombergs) of the world untouched. Why should the poor and middle class be excluded from driving on public streets while wealthy people are not??? There has to be a better and fairer way to reduce congestion. The good news is that Bloomberg isn't the mayor who could get this done anyway - he's too susceptible to the argument that he's out of touch with common folk.

dhex

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:29:07 -0500

"to all the people wondering how this is enforced: London has congestion pricing, and they have cameras at every entrance to check to see if you've paid, and if not you are fined." to be fair, that's london's answer to everything these days!

tim

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:03:36 -0500

i'll just repeat what i said last time... why do people feel the need to trample on other people freedoms? why do people feel the need to tax the working class out of Manhattan? traffic is part of life in a big city, people make that calculation when they decide to drive over mass transit... wtf is happening to America? we are becoming a perpetual nanny state... we like to speak of freedoms but now have less than many of our peers. we do not need additional taxes on the people of nyc, it is already the most highly taxed area in the country, enough already. how about taking simple steps like putting up signs that you see in other states that tell people to stay right unless passing... it seems everyone like to be in every lane going slow and blocking everyone else. lets start enforcing those laws before we suck peoples pockets dry who are just trying to make a living in the most efficient way for them. enough of this BS. there are many reasons people drive into the city and making people pay more than the minimum wage just for the privilege of getting where they need to go is ludicrous. unfortunately this crap idea will taint the good things bloomberg has done.

William

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:46:46 -0500

The Economist just posted an article on the same subject today: economistDOTcom/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9058956 ...Mayor Mike always seemed like he read from the "Extreme Centrist" paper-of-choice.

William

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:45:59 -0500

The Economist just posted an article on the same subject today: economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9058956 ...Mayor Mike always seemed like he read from the "Extreme Centrist" paper-of-choice.

whatever

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:45:28 -0500

to all the people wondering how this is enforced: London has congestion pricing, and they have cameras at every entrance to check to see if you've paid, and if not you are fined. The camera looks at both front and back license plates and a computer figures out the plate number. They also have an EZ-Pass type system to pay as well. source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

Rickster

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:44:58 -0500

What about motorcycles? They should be free.

whatever

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:44:20 -0500

dhex

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:42:31 -0500

yeah europe is super docile...i mean, civilized. except when it ain't, mind you, but that's a meme afield from here... i don't drive, but i'm not really into the whole idea that a) this will necessarily shift people into mass transit or b) that it won't just have people finding alternate routes into work that involve skipping the toll some other way. social engineering is delicious on the outside (for a certain kind of person), but complicated on the inside. we shall see what we shall see.

Reality Czech

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:32:04 -0500

Oh it's a great idea, but how will this be enforced? Will each the Queesborough, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges get toll booths? Will there be toll booths at 86th or 96th st on every avenue? How will the 'exempt' peopel not get charged the full amount? Does the mayor actually expect the NYPD to enforce this? This may work in Europe where the people are civilized, but New York City is a whole other animal.

Reality Czech

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:31:22 -0500

Josh

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:26:58 -0500

What's the point if you give a discount to people who work within the applicable zone? The best possible end result of this plan is to get commuters to take public transportation.

Josh

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:23:35 -0500

What's the point if you give a discount to people who work within the applicable zone? The best possible end result of this plan is to get commuters to take public transportation.

drewo

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:04:42 -0500

Let us no longer bow down to Car Culture.

one man one vote

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:51:39 -0500

they had this story on NY1. Every car they stopped to be interviewed only had the driver in the car. cry me a river ain't just a JT song.

but I regress

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:45:59 -0500

Regressive tax on the working people? Cry me a river. Just about every scheme to save the environment ends up being a regressive tax. The goal is to get people to consume less in resources. You can't achieve that any other way. I suppose you could tax the crap out of the super wealthy and plow the money into windmills and electric cars. Solves the CO2 issue but doesn't discourage driving. This is really no different than the cigarette tax. The goal is as much to discourage smoking as it is to raise money.

dork

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:31:00 -0500

supaflysnooka: it's not a tax. it's a toll.

supaflysnooka

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:21 -0500

is the tax only for those who use the bridges and tunnels? if not, how can this be enforced?

Max

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:23:39 -0500

Bring on the congestion charges- I am all for it.

anon

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:18:05 -0500

do something about the trucks that double park. do something about the construction sites that eliminate driving lanes. do something about the garbage trucks who block the streets.