Are you back from your trip yet? How did it go?

History Channel's science-based "Global Warning" paints a bleak picture -- with more to follow -- of the future of human life if we do not act now and where cars definitely do not fit.

To defuse a common idea that this is may be catastrophe porn the History Show also has a show on prior cult tragedies and religious apocalyptic visions.

As a responsible leader you may want to share this with your constituents.

$19.49 billion is the dollar value of all accidents in New York State in one year and might be a quick way to secure funding for your tunnels if a way can be found to capture this saving during a state-wide car-free year which could also include savings on car insurance premiums perhaps worth as much as $8 billion (other normal modes of travel are not as dangerous and do not require insurance) and the $13 billion normally lost to New York City congestion.

A benefit of lesser importance is that about 1,500 lives would be saved.

A lot more than 1,500 lives can be saved with 40.49 billion dollars.

http://207.59.85.19/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2004&State=NY&Accessible=0

Post number 78 is also addressed to you.

This city and its people have emerged with flying colors after the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC) cleaned up the catastrophic devastation of 9/11 many months ahead of schedule.

Are you saying that we are not capable of implementing a congestion pricing strategy equal to if not better than the highly successful London initiative?

The hydrogen car proposed by the president (and you) has been described as one these impractical solutions wasting 20 percent of funding that could other-wise be used for technologies that actually hold the promise of helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the first half of this century.

Please briefly describe what you believe to be the steps to develop a practical hydrogen car with the estimated time and costs required for each stage of development.

Does this capture your estimates and projections for your plan's tunnel projects?

The plan's highest priority "Component #1: Construct 3 Critical Tunnels: a. The Cross Harbor Tunnel. b. The Trans-Narrows Tunnel. c. The Gowanus Expressway Tunnel."

Total Estimated Funds Required:
1. Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel $8 billion
2. Trans-Narrow Tunnel $4 billion
3. Gowanus Tunnle $6 billion

Total Estimated Funds in hand: $0

Total Time required to get funding: unknown

Best Estimate for finishing all 3 tunnels if started today (Nov 8, 2007): 2016 (9 years duration)

Please make any corrections as necessary.

As the previous two posters said, I also appreciate your willingness to engage in debate.

I still would like you to deal with the issue of fairness to people who are transit dependent. They do not have the choice to drive and they are affected by peak period fare policies that are designed to manage demand. Is this wrong? If it is, would you fight against it? If it is not, then why would C.P. be morally reprehensible?

Just as Dave H. mentioned (post #74) thanks, for the good-faith debate.

Here's a link to Joseph Fromm's "The Hype About Hydrogen" excerpted from his book "Hell and High Water -- Global Warming the Solution and the Politics and What We Should Do" (on NYSStreets new community).

http://www.nycstreets.org/projects/hydrogencars/project-home

While this is really a high-level overview, it is provided as a start for serious discussion on hydrogen cars.

In any case, even if everything about working hydrogen cars existed here-and-now with all outstanding issues resolved (a huge hypothetical), it is not clear how they would be a timely solution.

Congestion pricing is well on its way and is the first real start in addressing NYC transportation's part in mitigating climate change.

What is needed is an inspired effort to move congestion pricing forward, make it work by solving all existing problems in the best possible way, achieve success, and move on to bigger and better transportation and other NYC green initiatives.

The earth could care less what we do. Life on this planet is a different story.

I'm really glad to have someone engaging with some of us in a good-faith debate on these issues. As you might imagine, I disagree with a lot of the things you said but I will choose to pick away at two of them here:

1) Although it is true there is risk of death resulting from any kind of transportation, the risk of death from automobiles is vastly higher. According to the National Safety Council, "in 2000, the passenger death rate in automobiles was 0.80 per 100 million passenger-miles. The rates for buses, trains, and airlines were 0.05, 0.03, and 0.02, respectively." That's a pretty impressive difference: buses killed 16 times fewer passengers than automobiles. (Drivers of private cars are counted as passengers for the statistics. These statistics do not include third-party injuries but I see no reason to suspect the ratio would be very different). My guess is that subway deaths are significantly lower than even bus deaths per passenger mile but I am unaware of any statistics on this (though it should be hard to calculate).

2)You said that 52% of people in your district commute to work by car. I suggest the real question you should be looking at is how many people commute to work by car to the proposed congestion pricing zone. I imagine most of your car commuters are not going to the Central Business District and so would not have to pay any more.

Breifly, I know all too well that cars can be deadly. My father passed away shortly after a car accident from complications that it caused. I wsa in the car. No need to explain.

Noonetheless, until we get Trekkian here, the automobile is an essential part of our transportation scheme. YOU choose train, plane, bus or bicycle, that's great. Otehrs make otehr choices for very valid reasons. Trains DO have accidents. Planes do crash (I hate writing that knowing I will be on one tomorrow.) There is inherent risk in movement. We will not convince each otehr here. I understand what all of you are saying, I just do not agree with it.

Regarding Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, (and I regret that I cannot upload the 50 pages or so of reports on the various aspects of my plan that are annexed to the original, so I will summarize):

Vehicles that run on pure hydrogen have a 64% energy efficiency rating. Additionally, the engine efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells, requires less fuel than other alternative fuel vehicles.In Torrance CA, a company called Fuel Maker is operating a hydrogen refueling station that utilizes solar power electrolysis to produce hyddrogen. Solar or hydropower processing plants sharply increase the energy efficiency of fuel cell cars. My source for this data is http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/infratructure/hydr_resources.html.

My report analyzed all type of alternative fuel vehicles. It is also clear btw, that these cars can be produced now were we willing to require it. And they are ZERO Emissions. What would THAT do for our asthma rates and to our smog?

Now to the tunnel questions---again.

The estimated cost of the Cross Harbbor Freight Tunnel is about 8 billion. The expectation is that this will largely be borne by the Federal government. The EIS is already in progress. (Oh yes, an EIS, What a novel thought pro-CP pricers.) It could be completed by 2016. In addition to taking a million smog spewing trucks off our roads every year, there are savings in road maintenance for sure. Additionally, the opportunities for economic development along the train right of way in places like the ENY Industrial Park and the Brooklyn Terminal Market, just to name two, are excellent. Surely, this will return some significant revenue to the City.

The estimated cost of the Trans-Narrows Tunnel is $4 billion. Since that tunnel is shorter than the Cross Harbor Tunnel, I would hope that it could be completed in the same time frame. Since this tunnel would connect the fastest growing boro on our City to the subway system, I would think you would have the least problem with this one. I can't tell you how many cars this would tke off our street, because up to now SI'ers have not had the option of taking the train to work. Isn't that absolutely frickin' ridiculous?

Cost estimates for the Gowanus Tunnel vary. The higher estimate from State DOT which did not want to do the project, ignored the use of new tunneling technologies that are cheaper and more effective than cover and dig. The best estimate I can make is $6-8 billion.

However, in addtion to ending the interminable repair and maintainence costs for this ill designed road, and by giving engineers the opportunity to end the worst congesteed roadway in America (saving energy and decreasing pollutants), the economic return to the City for this one would be huge. Opening Brooklyn's magnificent waterfront, currently wasted to the core, to parkland, housing and economic development would return billions to the City. It would transform neighborhoods. It would create jobs. Honestly, I believe that the project would pay for itself over and over.

But lets say that the price tag for my tunnels is a total of $18 billion ( a mere week in Iraq.) Someone who was merely trying to defeat CP without more would not have attemtped to pay for it.

The Rergional one third of one percent Payroll Tax would raise (according to the NY City Council Finance Division and the Independent Budget Office) $13 billion dollars by the year 2016. If we assume taht the Feds do in fact give $6 billion towards the Cross Harbor Tunnel, we would be able to do far more than just pay the debt service. By the year, 2030, an additional $32 billion would be generated.

How much more we could do with $45 billion for all regional transportation that we can with the pittance that CP will generate in comparison.

An equitable tax. A regional Tax for a regional problem. Not a commuter tax but a tax FOR commuters. And a minimal tax. A business with a half million dollar payroll would pay $1,500 per year. (Pls check my math.) And EVERY business relies on commuting employees and/or commuting customers. Who the heck knows, maybe we could even save the transit fare.

Residential Parking, Larry, is just wrong wrong wrong. And it is narrow minded of you to say you only want it in the evenings. In the neighborhood I represent, a significant number of people work at night. How many of my health care workers do that?

BTW, I ahve seen facts thrown around about my district. I know my district pretty well. Fifty two percent of the people from my district who work commute to that job by CAR. If you take out those that work at home (7% i believe) you can do the math. That is in large part because of the fact taht the transporation alternatives in my world stink. And dspite promises, promises, they continnue to stink. And to expect my constituents to believe that if they jsut pay this $8 charge, things will significantly change---THAT is pie in the sky.

I think I got em all answered now.

If I said I would miss you all while I was out of town for the next few days, would I be lying?

Aw, maybe a little bit.

I shall return. Unless Aaron locks me out.

Lew from Brooklyn

I should point out that planes tend to be a pretty wasteful form of transportation, and I'd like to see people shift as many trips as they can from planes to trains, buses and ferries.

In 2006 there were 909 railroad related fatalities of which

369 (40.5%) were at grade crossings.
517 (56.9%) were trespassers
16 (1.8%) were on duty employees
2 (0.2%) were passengers

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html

Would you dismiss murder deaths the same way?

(1)http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/PDF/810837.pdf

(2)http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html

Perhaps we need an analogy to understand how rates are important, one tailored for planet motorist? If rates do not matter, then surely you should drive everywhere at 1 m.p.h, because either way you are moving and will get there eventually. I will not indulge the idea that going 50 m.p.h. gets you to places that 1 m.p.h. can not!

Seriously. I'm shocked that we're still presented with this childish misreading. Mister: it's a question of degree. Although I doubt there's a measurable incidence of pedestrians accidently killing by walking, yes we're all quite aware that trains, mass-transit autos, and even bicycles accidently kill. The difference is that we care *how often* that happens, while others are not willing to consider any quantity other than zero and not-zero. Such hand-waving to gloss over the untimely deaths of hundred of New Yorkers a year is itself immoral, in any form of humanism, and it rises far above whatever morality is imagined to preclude charging for the operation of automobiles within a zone. As if!

What infuriates me is not that people drive. It is that you have opposed congestion pricing by promising all kinds of massively costly investments, over and above those already in the pipeline that we will be very lucky to get. That is what, to me, makes it a red herring -- even though you did propose a tax to pay for it.

It's why I'm also infuriated by people complaining about a fare increase to keep up with inflation, given that the fare is so much lower (given discounts) than it was, even without taking inflation into account. Transit riders don't want to pay either. No one does.

Years of pandering to something for nothing are leading us to disaster. Rather than promising lots of new vehicular and transit tunnels, we'd be better off talking about working at home, carpooling (adding people to the empty seats on existing car trips) and bikes. Why? Money!

Larry, we live in different worlds. In your world, everyone is unfetterd by obligations and frailties, unencumbered by the vagaries of their work. DRIVING intothe CBD is not ALWAYS a simple choice of "hey, I'd prefer it". When my standard 76 year old constituent can hop on a bicycle, or even cram herself onto my overcrowded, slow if ever running, semi-dilapidated express bus, the very thought of which frightens her to death, maybe she won't need a ride into the CBD.

The only people for whom this is a choice are the thoroughly wealthy. They can choose as they see fit, $8 or whatever charge will be needed for CP to turn a profit, being chump change to them.

The eltiism behind this argument infuriates ME.

I want to address this question of elitism. It's something that you allude to all over the place: that this plan pits two groups of New Yorkers against each other: the rich Manhattanites who can afford to pay $8 a day and who take taxis and limousines against the "poor and middle class" who drive to work in Manhattan.

The problem is that those two groups together make up less than a quarter of all New Yorkers. The rest take buses, subways and the LIRR. Even in your district, more than a quarter of households do not own a vehicle.

I can tell how angry you are about the elitism you perceive. I've felt that anger before myself - in your district. I've been in southeast Brooklyn several times on foot, by bike, by bus, even on rollerskates. All the criticisms that you hurl at the congestion pricing proposal - that it limits access, that it treats people like second-class citizens, that it favors the better-off - are true of the way streets are designed in your district. Walking around in Southeast Brooklyn is inconvenient, dangerous and constantly humiliating - and that's the way life is for more than a quarter of your constituents.

Following Hanlon's razor, I'm assuming that you're genuinely angered by the elitism you perceive and not just using it as a tool to oppose congestion pricing. But if that's the case, then you just don't know what things are like for people who are trying to get around your district without a car. I would be happy to take a walk with you, say from Canarsie to Floyd Bennett Field, or from Brooklyn College to Kings Plaza, and point out the indignities and threats that pedestrians have to deal with, but motorists are spared.

My point is that if you say there are "two New Yorks," then I've got a third one for you, which is bigger than the other two combined, and gets treated much worse. Where is this third New York in your proposal? Are you planning to buy them all cars, and force them to drive even if they don't want to?

What will your plan do for the express bus riders in your district? As I've written before, I used to be a regular express bus rider in the Bronx. It was quiet and comfortable, and most of the other riders were older women who didn't seem at all afraid. If this isn't the case for the buses from your district, why isn't there something in your plan to make the buses more accommodating for your "standard 76-year-old"?

With all due respect, I believe you are ducking a legitimate issue here in regards to car deaths vs. others, particularly trains. This is especially true because you were the person who initially made the comparision in this thread. If you don't want to compare them, don't bring it up. Once you do, you either need to defend your statement or disown them, not shut down debate about the issue.

In regards to your cp argument, by giving free access to street space but not to transit, it gives a priviledge class i.e. car owners access that other do not have. Following your own logic, the current system implicitly discriminates against the transit dependent. Moreover, congestion pricing with the goal of limiting demand already exists in the world of transit. MNRR, LIRR and NJT all have different peak vs. non-peak fares. Is this discriminatory? Are you going to fight against this as well?