Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
The failure of congestion pricing (at least for this legislative session) has cast a pall on NYC-Albany relations. Not least because Mayor Bloomberg spent some time yesterday slamming state lawmakers. He said:
New York City is today poorer because of Albany's inaction yesterday, and I think, sadly, it appears that we jeopardized, at best, and probably lost, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something with someone else's money.However, Democratic State Senators and Assembly members are saying that Mayor Bloomberg's arrogance and refusal to really speak with them about the program. The NY Times has this fun graphic - the Circle O' Congestion Pricing Blame - and has two interesting quotes. First, from congestion pricing opponent Assemblyman Richard Brodsky*: "When it came time to deal with people he didn’t control, he didn’t know how to do it." Then Assemblyman Keith Wright said that in spite of the Mayor's claims he sent lawmakers mailings, the Mayor only met with him twice (and only met with Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver once); Wright said, “I told the mayor that occasionally - occasionally - individual members have been known to move an agenda. He just gave me a blank stare.”"And [we] demonstrated once again that Albany just does not seem to get it."
State Senator Malcolm Smith, the Democratic minority leader, said on NY1 that Bloomberg "spit" in the face of Democrats by supporting Bruno and the State Senate Republicans. The Daily News reports that there are still talks about congestion pricing, but it's unclear what will happen.
Other congestion pricing supporters, while disappointed, are happy with Bloomberg's work. Partnership for New York City president Kathryn Wylde told the NY Sun, "We were frankly amazed that the mayor was able to get it to this point. And we're prepared to get it done next year if we can't get it done this year. Federal dollars come and go. Who knows, maybe we'll have a New Yorker as president, that can help us."
* Fun stats from Streetsblog: Brodsky had claimed he was fighting for the interests of low- and middle-income NYers by opposing congestion pricing, but 53% of his Westchester constituents seem to have annual incomes of more than $75,000. Streetsblog compares that with two congestion pricing supporters, Assemblymen Jose Rivera (Bronx) and Adriano Espaillat (Manhattan), whose districts each have 91% of the populations earning less than $75,000 (about 63% actually earn under $35,000).
Photograph of Bicycle Clowns meeting "Sheldon Silver" (the dude wearing the Smog Hog lectern) by Times Up on Flickr
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
So is Albany concerned with doing whats best for the taxpayers that live in New York - or for playing petty control games with Bloomberg? It sure sounds like the latter.
Of course the lead jacka$$ against the plan is from Manhattan. For once the upstate guys want to help NYC and our own officials are screwing us.
Maybe Silver should be forced to live in a tent in the Midtown tunnel, get a does of the pollution for himself.
nyc should secede from ny state.
we have almost half its people. and we should wait for Albany to waste our money on programs that barely benefit nyc as a whole.
when nyc need something like this. they kill it without thinking of nyc.
fucking westchester
"However, Democratic State Senators and Assembly members are saying that Mayor Bloomberg's arrogance and refusal to really speak with them about the program."
What?
opps i meant shouldn't wait for albany!!
I live in the Bronx, and I'm pro - congestion pricing. But it seems like a lot of Bronxites (and the Bronx papers) are against congestion pricing, as many fear that the south Bronx will become a huge parking lot.
Who's (primarily) to blame? Two words: Sheldon "Shelly" Silver.
In order for congestion pricing to pass, it needed to pass the Assembly, but Assembly leader Silver never allowed the vote to take place.
Congestion would have led to cleaner air, a better flow of traffic by eliminating severely congested streets/highways, and probably a better economy. Also, NYC has now lost out on approx. $500 million of special federal transit funding that it would have received. Think about that when your subway fares go up.
While Brodsky's constituents may have a higer median income than those of Rivera and Espaillat, Westchester reisdents are much more likely to drive to work because of limited access to affordable and effcient public transportation to Manhattan. A month metro north RR pass can run in excess of $130 a month depending on where you live. A round trip ticket for one ride is in excess of $15 for most middle to northern westchester residents. Driving is still the more affordable means of transportation to Manhattan for some.
hurrah! this is a victory for all the real people who live in nyc. yuppie douchebags don't count.
[#9] Driving to Manhattan is more affordable? How do you arrive at that conclusion when you factor in gasoline, insurance, parking fees, etc.?
If Bloomberg really wanted to implement this plan, he should have brought it the legislature sooner, rather than wait until the last minute and then use an artificial deadline as an ultimatum.
I live in Brooklyn and have a car, and although I don't drive to work and back, I do spend more money in Manhattan than I would if I had to take a subway to get there all of the time. I actually use the car to spend more time in Brooklyn and Queens, since the subway is so unpleasant. To me, it's a boon to be able to drive home in an air-conditioned car on a 90-degree day once in a while.
Sometimes it seems as if Bloomberg and Manhattanites in general are all for creating an oasis for themselves, free of the rest of us, who prefer to drive, don't mind smoking in bars, and eat fatty foods. Manhattan is now an alternate reality instead of a part of New York City. Why else come up with a plan that doesn't affect drivers from New Jersey or drivers who can afford city parking lots?
Traffic congestion is a chimera. Most of it is caused by double-parked trucks, from what I've seen. I've paid hundreds of dollars out to meters and for parking tickets to drive into Manhattan... now I have to pay $8 for the privilege of driving to a particular part of the same city?
More on Assembly leader, Sheldon Silver's stand on NYC transportation issues (from Wikipedia)"
"In 1999, Silver was instrumental in the repeal of New York City's commuter tax, which taxed non-resident workers similarly to city residents. This was a great benefit to those commuting to work in the city from surrounding areas, but came at a tremendous cost to his own NYC constituents. Silver was criticized by city leaders for removing the tax, and though after 9/11 he has suggested he would support reinstating it, he has taken no steps to do so."
Check out the Time’s Up! video of the Clown Bicycle Brigade following “Sheldon Silver” around Manhattan last Friday offering him the $500 million check with no luck.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4893567357853206586&pr=goog-sl
matukonyc wrote:
The problem is that millions of other people think like you as well. It would be okay if only a few people wanted to convenience of a car on a few days, but right now too many people want that convenience every day.
Traffic congestion is not a chimera, and while double-parked trucks contribute to clogged streets, they hardly explain the traffic on the LIE, the Cross Bronx, the GWB, etc. (I've never seen trucks making deliveries on the Major Deegan.)
The problem is too many cars. Plain and simple. We can debate the merits of congestion pricing, but the cause of traffic is inarguable.
#7 - interesting points you made:
"...a lot of Bronxites (and the Bronx papers) are against congestion pricing, as many fear that the south Bronx will become a huge parking lot."
However--with all due respect--I seriously doubt that many Westchester residents would ever consider parking their cars in the South Bronx.
this plan was dead from the start. it wasn't about the environment, it was about installing NYPD cameras throughout the city under the guise of environmentalism. It was also about grabbing money (the proposal as it was written did not force the money raised to go to infrastructure improvements -- though it was touted as such). Even the 500 million wasn't "real" -- congress never approved the money, and you think the middle of the country is going t o send us 500 mill when they cut our terrorism funding year after year?! Some of you are so naive to the ways of city politics.
I have to agree with [17]. When their own numbers say it will only affect 5% of the cars coming into the city and will raise the vehicle speed from 8 to 8.6 mph, this wasn't about saving the planet. I also couldn't understand why they deducted the bridge and tunnel tolls which means NJ residents barely pay anything extra and they account for the majority of non-resident drivers.
I agree; too many cars is the main issue. And remember, most people that live in the 'congestion zone' don't own cars, primarily because the cost is prohibitive. Its a privilege to be able to afford a car wherever you live.
If Bloomberg and his staff could guarantee the fees would be used for quality upgrades to the subways and other train systems(e.g. cleaner trains, quality sound systems, more frequency), would more people approve??
Silver is a completely useless individual. Why would anyone in Manhattan vote for this idiot?
I don't notice traffic being any worse today than it was back in say, 1991. Maybe its just me, but whatever.
I think alot of this has to do with the changed demographics of the vast majority of lower Manhattan. The entire city used to reek of piss and whatever the hell else was wafting through the air..not to mention the sweet sweet exhaust of non-inspected ancient automobiles. Nowadays, even in the heat, its not that bad.
All this kvetching is impressive really, especially with the smog angle. I can only imagine what half the fucking people in Manhattan will do if the sanitation department decides to go on strike again.
Actually, I'm kind of praying for that to happen, just so I can say I witnessed it.
Whatever, I would have been all for this plan if it had de-tolled the major crossings outside of Manhattan, which is what Sam Swartz, the grandaddy of gridlock, advocated. His implementation was the smartest and the guy should know, he's one of the most respected traffic and urban planners in the universe.
15) There's alot more to traffic slowdown than just capacity. for the examples you gave, its alot more about how the major roads interconnect, banking and grading, clearance and design than it is about the number of vehicles, but thats for another conversation..
11- It is cheaper to drive in some cases. If you live in middle to northern Westchester (45 minute drive or so), you are going to have a car regardless. Now if you use your car to come to work in the city every day then part of the cost of insurance and buying the car could be attributed to your commute. Things would get more complicated and I'm guessing it would cost more to drive- I know I would sure as hell take the train. However, if you only drive into the city once a week or once a month, you can hardly include the cost of ownership and insurance in the cost of getting to the city. The fact is if you and two other people took the train from Pleasantville it would cost about 45$ round trip (more if both ways were peak). but if you drove the car and looked in the right neighborhoods (UE/UW, Bowery, etc.) you could, without great difficulty, find free parking while spending about 12-15$ in gas money. pretty hard to make an argument for the train at that point.
London has had congestion pricing for some time. What the system does there is to entrench a class system, whereby people who have the bucks to live centrally, or for whom it's no problem to pay extra to drive their cars aren't affected. And people who can't afford to live centrally, but who have lives that for whatever reason make public transport less viable (kids, running their own businesses, living not at all centrally and having multiple jobs, having disabilities, etc.) are made into second class citizens.
This was Silver's point -- that people who earned $30,0000 or less in the boroughs would be the losers. Whatever his central motivations for making the point, he's right. He also said there was no stipulation, in the legislation, that the additional $$ would absolutely have to be used for better transport.
Someone who lives in Manhattan telling someone from BK or Queens to just suck it up and sit on the subway - - when it may take us 3 times as long to take the subway -- is as self-centered as anyone who says that there simply isn't a problem, in our society, with the over-use of cars.
We need long-term solutions. But congestion pricing, as currently proposed, would punish middle income New Yorkers for whom using a car is frequently the best solution. And would make the city much more like London -- a city where the middle class is fast disappearing.
"Too many cars," or too many people? In other words, in a city of millions, how many cars are too many? I'd like to see some hard statistics on who drives into the city and why.
[17] wrote:
Paranoid much? You should go see a shrink.25... u think it was a coincidence they started talking about the NYPD ring of steel at the same time?
Yes, I do.
[#21]:
"There's alot more to traffic slowdown than just capacity. for the examples you gave, its alot more about how the major roads interconnect, banking and grading, clearance and design than it is about the number of vehicles..."
That's one way of looking at it. But you may be making things more complicated than they really are. I take an express bus to Manhattan from Brooklyn every morning at 6 am. Even at that hour, the Gowanus/BQE is bumper to bumper with cars, most of which have only the driver. That's right, just the driver, no passengers. (There seems to be little interest in carpooling.) Not only that, some of these single-person cars even drive in the bus/HOV-only lane so they hold up the vehicles entitled to be in that lane.
[9] - you obviously have far more money than you have brains.
[3] - Yeah, if NYC became its own state and did not have to contribute to NYS revenues, Albany would find itself in an extremely uncomfortable position suddenly.
23- I am probably wrong, but I thought most of the residents in London and surrounding areas were middle class due to the high cost of living. Even people making well above average wages can live paycheck-to-paycheck due to personal expenses.
For some people, the best solution may to move out of NYC and to a city/state where innovation and pragmatism is embraced.
Taxing people to drive to parts of their own city is yet another blame-the-victim scenario.
Its a tax to fund a surveillance system.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
well said, 31...
I would like to sign up for the Muse/Cold War Kids tickets. The reason is that they play kick *ss music.
I've come to the conclusion that only about 20% of Gothamist readers have even a clue about congestion pricing. The rest are just blowing steam.
Its a tax to fund a surveillance system.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
Bullshit. Do you really think the NYPD, FBI, NSA, MIBs, etc. give a damn about monitoring your pathetic existence? If it does anything it will help arrest people who are wanted for crimes already commited. Ask any British person if they feel oppressed by all of their cameras.
How about forming our own state? North Jersey and Long Island can tag along if they want.
[#9] Driving to Manhattan is more affordable? How do you arrive at that conclusion when you factor in gasoline, insurance, parking fees, etc.?
A monthly ticket from Westchester is like $200. From parts of Long Island it's like $350. If anything, they're probably pretty similar in costs per month, before you factor in the comfort of your own car vs public transit.
[3] - Yeah, if NYC became its own state and did not have to contribute to NYS revenues, Albany would find itself in an extremely uncomfortable position suddenly.
So would New York City. You guys have money and no space. They have space and no money. So I don't know where, exactly, on Long Island or Manhattan you're putting your new prisons to house the criminals currently residing "up the river". Or the city's reservoirs. Or the city's dumps.
It's amazing to me that not only do the opponents quoted here seem to be motivated more by injured pride that Bloomberg didn't dance for them enough, but that they are so plainly admitting it.
Aren't these guys just supposed to consider issues? What's with all the hang-wringing over whether or not Bloomberg supported some Republicans?
The worst thing about politics is politics.
[31], roads are a commodity that you're using just like anything else. Should all highway tolls be repealed too, then?
Why should I be taxed for taking a train to different parts of the city?
I'm glad it failed. This city's expensive enough already. Not right to get slammed with another thing. Besides, it's not like it would stop people from driving their big, fat SUVs in & out of Manhattan. Not a car owner myself.
#41 please refer to #35 (you're the latter not the former).
Why should I be taxed for taking a train to different parts of the city?
That doesn't even make sense.
36 -- yes i do
[39] - well put!
[41] - You're right, it wouldn't stop the slobs from driving their SUV's, but what it WOULD do is place a greater portion of the financial support needed to deal with the cities traffic on those that create it.