<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Congestion Pricing: The Public Conversation Begins</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:08:53 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: steveo</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/comment-page-1/#comment-12668</link>
		<dc:creator>steveo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:08:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/#comment-12668</guid>
		<description>Yabbut, Jason, the Boulder &quot;carbon&quot; tax only applies to carbon emitted in the home based on the number of kilowatt hours.  Cars aren&#039;t included.  Which makes it a half-measure, since about half of the carbon released in the U.S. is from cars and &quot;light trucks&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yabbut, Jason, the Boulder "carbon" tax only applies to carbon emitted in the home based on the number of kilowatt hours.  Cars aren't included.  Which makes it a half-measure, since about half of the carbon released in the U.S. is from cars and "light trucks".</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/comment-page-1/#comment-12636</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:45:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/#comment-12636</guid>
		<description>Boulder, Colorado just instituted a carbon tax.
here is the link:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/boulder_colorad.php
there is s story in the times from last week buts behind the firewall now

maybe one way to tax drivers is through their carbon usage...that is if congestion charging doesn&#039;t work with the politicians here.  It could have a similar effect as congestion charging but not limited to a specific neighborhood.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Boulder, Colorado just instituted a carbon tax.<br />
here is the link:<br />
<a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/boulder_colorad.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/boulder_colorad.php</a><br />
there is s story in the times from last week buts behind the firewall now</p>
<p>maybe one way to tax drivers is through their carbon usage...that is if congestion charging doesn't work with the politicians here.  It could have a similar effect as congestion charging but not limited to a specific neighborhood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/comment-page-1/#comment-12631</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:53:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/#comment-12631</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s very true Dave. In fact the reason given by Ray Kelly for the new police parade rules is exactly that - police, ambulances and fire vehicles need to get around town and any traffic obstruction is a threat, even if they are on bikes. Restrictions on free speech and assembly are currently under consideration and will probably go into effect because the DOT and the Mayor can&#039;t figure out how to tame traffic!

They already can&#039;t get around town now!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That's very true Dave. In fact the reason given by Ray Kelly for the new police parade rules is exactly that - police, ambulances and fire vehicles need to get around town and any traffic obstruction is a threat, even if they are on bikes. Restrictions on free speech and assembly are currently under consideration and will probably go into effect because the DOT and the Mayor can't figure out how to tame traffic!</p>
<p>They already can't get around town now!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/comment-page-1/#comment-12620</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/#comment-12620</guid>
		<description>I have posted before and am a Manhattan resident and full supporter of congestion pricing; tolls on bridges, etc.--essentailly anything to reduce traffic in Manhattan.  

The one issue that I have yet to hear raised is the impact of congestion on the ability of the police and fire departments to move freely to a crisis; to get ambulances to hospitals; fire trucks to fires and the like.

One would also think that given the acknowledged terrorist threat in the city, there would be political motivation to reduce traffic to allow the police greater freedom of movement in Manhattan.

Let&#039;s hope these four reports, in addition to economic impact, also mention health, terrorism and other impacts on the city as a result of too much traffic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have posted before and am a Manhattan resident and full supporter of congestion pricing; tolls on bridges, etc.--essentailly anything to reduce traffic in Manhattan.  </p>
<p>The one issue that I have yet to hear raised is the impact of congestion on the ability of the police and fire departments to move freely to a crisis; to get ambulances to hospitals; fire trucks to fires and the like.</p>
<p>One would also think that given the acknowledged terrorist threat in the city, there would be political motivation to reduce traffic to allow the police greater freedom of movement in Manhattan.</p>
<p>Let's hope these four reports, in addition to economic impact, also mention health, terrorism and other impacts on the city as a result of too much traffic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/comment-page-1/#comment-12619</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/#comment-12619</guid>
		<description>Regarding the following statement:

&quot;There are people in Eastern Queens and Staten Island and other parts of the city who are not near public transportation. I don&#039;t want to discriminate against those individuals,&quot; Mr. Weprin said.

Discriminate?  The notion that congestion pricing &quot;discriminates&quot; against car owners living distant from public transportation ignores that these people can drive their cars to a subway station or bus stop.  

It also  presumes that the city should be subsidizing private auto transport for those sections of New York, by providing and maintaining a network of free roadways and parking spaces and accepting an unreasonable burden of pollution and safetey hazards posed by inordinate congestion.  It would be unthinkable for the city subsidize travel from Queens and Staten Island to Manhattan by shuttling people between those destinations in livery cabs (think of Hevesi&#039;s wife).  The current system of devoting millions in public money to maintaining a system of free roads, bridges and parking spots to invite motorists to come and pollute and congest Manhatan streets is no less a subsidy.  Rhetoric of &quot;discrmination&quot; only obscures the underlying reality of who is subsidizing whom.  

The &quot;real&quot; discrimination is the failure to adequately extend public transportation to Eastern Queens and Staten Island.  Let&#039;s dedicate the proceeds from the congestion procing in Manhatan to public transportation in the outer boroughs and dispense with rhetoric about &quot;discrimination.&quot;

For a long time, you might have argued that  Manhattanites were &quot;discriminating against&quot; Staten Island by sending all of their garbage there to be landfilled.  That system was wrong and it is finally coming to an end, in large part due to the vocal efforts of Staten Island residents.  Did anyone worry that Manhattanites would be &quot;discriminated against&quot; if they did not have an equal right to dump their garbage in Fresh Kills?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the following statement:</p>
<p>"There are people in Eastern Queens and Staten Island and other parts of the city who are not near public transportation. I don't want to discriminate against those individuals," Mr. Weprin said.</p>
<p>Discriminate?  The notion that congestion pricing "discriminates" against car owners living distant from public transportation ignores that these people can drive their cars to a subway station or bus stop.  </p>
<p>It also  presumes that the city should be subsidizing private auto transport for those sections of New York, by providing and maintaining a network of free roadways and parking spaces and accepting an unreasonable burden of pollution and safetey hazards posed by inordinate congestion.  It would be unthinkable for the city subsidize travel from Queens and Staten Island to Manhattan by shuttling people between those destinations in livery cabs (think of Hevesi's wife).  The current system of devoting millions in public money to maintaining a system of free roads, bridges and parking spots to invite motorists to come and pollute and congest Manhatan streets is no less a subsidy.  Rhetoric of "discrmination" only obscures the underlying reality of who is subsidizing whom.  </p>
<p>The "real" discrimination is the failure to adequately extend public transportation to Eastern Queens and Staten Island.  Let's dedicate the proceeds from the congestion procing in Manhatan to public transportation in the outer boroughs and dispense with rhetoric about "discrimination."</p>
<p>For a long time, you might have argued that  Manhattanites were "discriminating against" Staten Island by sending all of their garbage there to be landfilled.  That system was wrong and it is finally coming to an end, in large part due to the vocal efforts of Staten Island residents.  Did anyone worry that Manhattanites would be "discriminated against" if they did not have an equal right to dump their garbage in Fresh Kills?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/comment-page-1/#comment-12615</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:17:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/20/the-public-conversation-begins/#comment-12615</guid>
		<description>Instead of arguing against congestion pricing, which would probably only affect a small minority of his constituents and might reduce pollution from the Long Island Expressway and Grand Central Parkway, which both run through his district, Weprin should consider asking for more bus and train services for his constituents. And where could that money come from. 

Well I dunno, maybe a congestion price on the Manhattan CBD, a good 15 miles from his district. 

And maybe if there was congestion pricing, the small number of people who do drive into the CBD might actually be able to get there quicker.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Instead of arguing against congestion pricing, which would probably only affect a small minority of his constituents and might reduce pollution from the Long Island Expressway and Grand Central Parkway, which both run through his district, Weprin should consider asking for more bus and train services for his constituents. And where could that money come from. </p>
<p>Well I dunno, maybe a congestion price on the Manhattan CBD, a good 15 miles from his district. </p>
<p>And maybe if there was congestion pricing, the small number of people who do drive into the CBD might actually be able to get there quicker.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
