Comments on: Deborah Glick: Devil’s in the Details of Congestion Pricing

By: A failed constituent

A failed constituent — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:39:56 +0000

Whatever Shelly Silver says, Deborah is sure to follow.

She has done little or nothing for her district in 17 years.

She talks the talk, but shines Silver’s shoes.

Time for change.

By: LMmny

LMmny — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:56:00 +0000

1. Is this the only pricing plan the backers could come up with? This country/state/city should consider going to a fair wealth-related system. Why should the compact car driver worth a $100,000 pay the same as someone worth $100,000,000 traveling in a chauffered SUV? This wealth-related system would also apply to businesses and their commercial vehicles, too.
2. Will congestion be relieved or will more SUVs, and the like, fill the newly made space?
3. Who ultimately is going to pay for this tax/fee and be hurt by it? With our trickle down system, not business and not those with huge salaries.
4. How about requiring a “Culture Impact Report/Statement” prepared by a completely independent entity that is made available to the public? It is not enough for the mayor, governor, etc. pushing this fait accompli plan and the feds offering money for its implementation to accept it on face value alone. Many questions may or may not have been asked/answered about the plan but, the citizens only have certain special interest groups advocating it. The citizens must have broad and in depth information and take an active role in matters of this sort. Business and politicians created this mess and they want the middle class to make the necessary sacrifices and pay for it.
5. Why not have a sunset clause that ends the program after one year followed by an indepth “Culture Impact Study Addendum” (available to the public)? Public discussions about adjustments, continuation or abandonment of the plan would follow.

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:44:58 +0000

Glick is known neither for her intellect nor her leadership ability – and her response here shows why. Very depressing.

Her short-sighted opposition to the Gansavoort marine transfer station is equally shameful. She really ought to take a leadership lesson from Chris Quinn, who also represents the area and who supports the station.

Yeah, Deborah, why worry about kids with asthma if they don’t live in your neighborhood? Why worry about the fact that other *poorer* communities have been shouldering your neighborhood’s garbage for generations?

By: JF

JF — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:07:07 +0000

I can understand that there are some politicians who fear the powerful minority of drivers and want to protect them, and I agree that Bloomberg’s proposal is problematic on a number of levels. But I’d rather hear “it would be great, if we fixed this” than “it needs further study to make sure that this problem is fixed.”

I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been even one politician who enthusiastically supports congestion pricing. I mean, come on: lower congestion, more money for transit, cleaner air! Make the rich pay just like the poor do! Isn’t there some rabble-rousing urban firebrand who can get behind this?

By: srock

srock — Thu, 31 May 2007 19:05:31 +0000

Solving our traffic problems are imperative in the near-term. Even if pedestrian and bicycle safety mean little to a given official, it is indisputable that global warming is occurring and continues to wreak irreparable harm every year. It is rare, or perhaps unheard of, to see a law that everyone unanimously loves– however, congestion pricing in any form will at least begin to mitigate the damage done by traffic. Disputes about the details of this sort of program can be worked out in the process of implementation, and should not be a hinder the passage of the plan.

By: Anne (www.sustainableflatbush.org)

Anne (www.sustainableflatbush.org) — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:32:48 +0000

her claim that local residents are mostly keeping cars for occasional weekend travel points to the fact that the city be looking much harder at creating itw own car-sharing programs such as those that exist in the bay area and encouraging private car-sharing companies like zipcar. reducing private car ownership would drastically reduce the need to “circle blocks in search of parking spaces”, and the need to warehouse cars on public streets altogether.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:25:18 +0000

I heard the same “the devil is in the detail” from Lappin and Kellner up here. Maybe the democratic caucus sent out some talking points…

IMO, the devil is not in the details, but in inaction, inertia, failures of omission, reactive posturing, pandering to motorists, no plan of your own, massive future MTA deficits, etc.

By: Joe Rappaport

Joe Rappaport — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:13:23 +0000

Glick’s response, unfortunately, reflects the so-far weak selling job done for congestion pricing. If, as you and I know, mass transit will be enhanced, why can Glick even raise it? I’d in this case blame the seller, not the recipient of the pitch.

(There also are serious questions about what mass transit projects will move forward if and when congestion pricing is approved: will they be smart initiatives that will actually improve transit for Queens, Brooklyn and other non-Manhattan residents, or are they big-ticket items like the extension of the 7 line for a big-building business district on the far West Side?)

By: Komanoff

Komanoff — Thu, 31 May 2007 16:04:40 +0000

I’m the constituent who wrote to Ms. Glick and to whom she replied above. Here’s what I wrote back yesterday.

Dear Assemblymember Glick –

Thank you for the courtesy of your reply to my earlier e-mail. I particularly appreciate your expression of belief in “transportation planning that valorizes walking, cycling and mass transit.” Valorizes is an apposite word, and it’s lovely to see an elected official use it in this context.

But I’m disappointed by the tepid nature of your support for the congestion pricing plan. The plan needs vigorous support at this time, and particularly from Manhattan delegates to the State Legislature. To be sure, that doesn’t mean a blank check, but it certainly implies greater enthusiasm than you expressed to me.

Knowing that you must address many issues and many constituents, I’ll confine myself to three simple but fundamental points I hope you will consider:

1. Valorizing walking, cycling and mass transit requires stripping driving of its entrenched and massive subsidies. Congestion pricing is a major step in that direction.

2. Small businesses that will pay $21 a day to
drive into the CBD also stand to benefit greatly from reduced travel times.

3. Your notion that “most [local residents] keep a car for occasional weekend travel” doesn’t jibe with the facts. Fewer than a quarter of households in your district own a car, according to data from the 2000 Census. (See attached spreadsheet, with car-ownership data for zip codes 10007, 10012, 10013, 10014, which I believe are your district’s main zips.)
This isn’t to concede the point about alternate-side parking, which I believe need not be a concern. Rather, I wish to ensure we’re clear that car-owners form a small minority in the 66th AD.

Thank you again for your reply. I urge you to come out swinging vigorously and effectively in support of the Mayor’s congestion pricing plan.

Best wishes,

Charles (Komanoff)

[Note to fellow S'bloggers from CK: write me at kea@igc.org if you'd like the spreadsheet.]