<?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: Gridlock Sam&#8217;s Compromise Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:12:44 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39920</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:53:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39920</guid>
		<description>I sympathize with Jonathan&#039;s problem, but it&#039;s basically one of regulation.  Some of your neighbors may have called the livery cabs ahead of time, but most probably hailed them on the street - which is illegal anyway.

As I understand it, the city has licensed so many livery cabs in part because the medallion cabs prefer to cluster in Manhattan (and not Upper Manhattan).  Allowing the livery cabs ensures that residents of your neighborhood can get a cab at all.

So: the city has not been able to ensure the availability of cabs outside of Manhattan below 96th Street, and they haven&#039;t been able to prevent livery cabs from responding to street hails.  I&#039;m not sure what they could do about your current situation - although I&#039;ve heard of them doing sting operations and fining drivers for picking people up off the street.

Full disclosure: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prontonyc.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one of my customers&lt;/a&gt; is a livery cab company.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I sympathize with Jonathan's problem, but it's basically one of regulation.  Some of your neighbors may have called the livery cabs ahead of time, but most probably hailed them on the street - which is illegal anyway.</p>
<p>As I understand it, the city has licensed so many livery cabs in part because the medallion cabs prefer to cluster in Manhattan (and not Upper Manhattan).  Allowing the livery cabs ensures that residents of your neighborhood can get a cab at all.</p>
<p>So: the city has not been able to ensure the availability of cabs outside of Manhattan below 96th Street, and they haven't been able to prevent livery cabs from responding to street hails.  I'm not sure what they could do about your current situation - although I've heard of them doing sting operations and fining drivers for picking people up off the street.</p>
<p>Full disclosure: <a href="http://www.prontonyc.com/" rel="nofollow">one of my customers</a> is a livery cab company.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Annie</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39918</link>
		<dc:creator>Annie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39918</guid>
		<description>In addition to everything Jonathan said about taxis (and I agree with him), if you reduce the number of taxis on the streets, you will effectively reduce congestion, thus allowing each taxi to pick up more fares. This actually balances out with the number of fares that are picked up today using a greater number of taxis. If we go below that number then yes, people will probably begin using alternative modes but at the very least there&#039;s no reason why we shouldn&#039;t try to hit that optimal number.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In addition to everything Jonathan said about taxis (and I agree with him), if you reduce the number of taxis on the streets, you will effectively reduce congestion, thus allowing each taxi to pick up more fares. This actually balances out with the number of fares that are picked up today using a greater number of taxis. If we go below that number then yes, people will probably begin using alternative modes but at the very least there's no reason why we shouldn't try to hit that optimal number.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39864</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39864</guid>
		<description>Eric, Angus, glennQ: I would like to put my two cents in on taxis. In my Upper Manhattan neighborhood, we are deluged by livery cabs, which have a $6 base rate for short trips. That makes it more convenient and just about as economical to take two kids to school than the bus. 

The key stat to taxi congestion, as I see it, is not Eric&#039;s &quot;dozens of people in a day&quot; but the fact that between seven and nine a.m. taxis clog the streets in my neighborhood. I doubt that the taxi riders are private car owners, so if there were no taxis, they would take the bus (or walk, or maybe cycle). Now, if you took the taxis off the streets, the buses would go a lot faster, obviating the need for taking the kids to school in a taxi in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric, Angus, glennQ: I would like to put my two cents in on taxis. In my Upper Manhattan neighborhood, we are deluged by livery cabs, which have a $6 base rate for short trips. That makes it more convenient and just about as economical to take two kids to school than the bus. </p>
<p>The key stat to taxi congestion, as I see it, is not Eric's "dozens of people in a day" but the fact that between seven and nine a.m. taxis clog the streets in my neighborhood. I doubt that the taxi riders are private car owners, so if there were no taxis, they would take the bus (or walk, or maybe cycle). Now, if you took the taxis off the streets, the buses would go a lot faster, obviating the need for taking the kids to school in a taxi in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gecko</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39863</link>
		<dc:creator>gecko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39863</guid>
		<description>just go to the carbon tax.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>just go to the carbon tax.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39860</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39860</guid>
		<description>glennQ,

A taxi is like a shared vehicle in that any individual taxi is used by dozens of people in a day, versus a private vehicle that is at curbside 98% of the time.  Granted, when the two are in use, there&#039;s no difference in terms of clogging the streets, so you have a point.  But all that curb space that would be freed up (cabs vs. privately owned cars) could be put to other uses.

Angus makes a good point, too – raise the taxi fare and devote the increase to transit improvements.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>glennQ,</p>
<p>A taxi is like a shared vehicle in that any individual taxi is used by dozens of people in a day, versus a private vehicle that is at curbside 98% of the time.  Granted, when the two are in use, there's no difference in terms of clogging the streets, so you have a point.  But all that curb space that would be freed up (cabs vs. privately owned cars) could be put to other uses.</p>
<p>Angus makes a good point, too – raise the taxi fare and devote the increase to transit improvements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39853</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39853</guid>
		<description>GlennQ, if we want to change taxi riders&#039; habits through fees, we can just raise the taxi fares.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GlennQ, if we want to change taxi riders' habits through fees, we can just raise the taxi fares.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: glennQ</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39852</link>
		<dc:creator>glennQ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39852</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see how a taxi is any closer to a &quot;shared vehicle&quot; than a private vehicle, but most taxi trips could be made in some sort of mass transit. Many drivers (doing business and such) don&#039;t have a mass transit option. Besides, how often are private vehicles just trolling around Manhattan like a taxi looking for a fare? 
I&#039;d think a taxi rider should at least pay a congestion tax, if we are supposed to be trying to change citizens habits through fees...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don't see how a taxi is any closer to a "shared vehicle" than a private vehicle, but most taxi trips could be made in some sort of mass transit. Many drivers (doing business and such) don't have a mass transit option. Besides, how often are private vehicles just trolling around Manhattan like a taxi looking for a fare?<br />
I'd think a taxi rider should at least pay a congestion tax, if we are supposed to be trying to change citizens habits through fees...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39814</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39814</guid>
		<description>Reducing taxis vs. reducing the number of private vehicles makes little sense, since taxis are effectively shared vehicles that help eliminate a need for redundant private vehicles.  Granted, it&#039;s better to get more people on mass transit, but taxis rank above private vehicles in the hierarchy of traffic-reducing elements.

Of course, if Sam were working for the taxi industry, he might have spun that one differently.  While his plan has some good elements, I think it&#039;s more about &quot;Sam, Inc.&quot; than anything else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reducing taxis vs. reducing the number of private vehicles makes little sense, since taxis are effectively shared vehicles that help eliminate a need for redundant private vehicles.  Granted, it's better to get more people on mass transit, but taxis rank above private vehicles in the hierarchy of traffic-reducing elements.</p>
<p>Of course, if Sam were working for the taxi industry, he might have spun that one differently.  While his plan has some good elements, I think it's more about "Sam, Inc." than anything else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: glennQ</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39808</link>
		<dc:creator>glennQ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39808</guid>
		<description>&quot;Reduce number of Taxis&quot; -How come nobody else is proposing that? Sounds like an easy way to get a lot of vehicles off the road to me...

&quot;Charge thru-trucking $100&quot; -Sounds fair enough... But how do you enforce it?

&quot;Curtail privileged parking&quot;  -Great idea.

The &quot;Vehicles in Motion in Midtown Core By Time of Day&quot; graph supports the arguement that most of the congestion is by people doing business by vehicle (and usually don&#039;t have a mass-transit option), not people traveling to work.

Whay a &quot;50% discount for people within [CP] zone?&quot; There are so many mass-transit option within the zone there is little need for a discount to travel within a zone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Reduce number of Taxis" -How come nobody else is proposing that? Sounds like an easy way to get a lot of vehicles off the road to me...</p>
<p>"Charge thru-trucking $100" -Sounds fair enough... But how do you enforce it?</p>
<p>"Curtail privileged parking"  -Great idea.</p>
<p>The "Vehicles in Motion in Midtown Core By Time of Day" graph supports the arguement that most of the congestion is by people doing business by vehicle (and usually don't have a mass-transit option), not people traveling to work.</p>
<p>Whay a "50% discount for people within [CP] zone?" There are so many mass-transit option within the zone there is little need for a discount to travel within a zone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mkultra</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39793</link>
		<dc:creator>mkultra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39793</guid>
		<description>vnm, i think the idea is to have the added east river bridge charges &amp; manhattan CBD congestion pricing make up for whatever tolls are removed elsewhere.  look at it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>vnm, i think the idea is to have the added east river bridge charges &amp; manhattan CBD congestion pricing make up for whatever tolls are removed elsewhere.  look at it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vnm</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39791</link>
		<dc:creator>vnm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39791</guid>
		<description>Tolls collected on the Throgs Neck, Whitestone, Triborough, Henry Hudson, Cross Bay, Gil Hodges and Verrazano Narrows Bridges provide hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the MTA, which it uses to provide mass transit. Sam&#039;s plan would make each and every one of those bridges free. That would result in fare hikes and/or service cuts just when everyone agrees that encouraging mass transit ridership is the way to go. Some plan . . .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tolls collected on the Throgs Neck, Whitestone, Triborough, Henry Hudson, Cross Bay, Gil Hodges and Verrazano Narrows Bridges provide hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the MTA, which it uses to provide mass transit. Sam's plan would make each and every one of those bridges free. That would result in fare hikes and/or service cuts just when everyone agrees that encouraging mass transit ridership is the way to go. Some plan . . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Layman</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39787</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Layman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39787</guid>
		<description>I am no pro on NYC, but just because people live within the greater city, that shouldn&#039;t discourage them from driving. Didn&#039;t I read something within the NYT, maybe the results of a study by Bruce Shaller pre-DOT, that had surprising results about how many trips were generated by Manhattan residents, and NYC residents overall? I don&#039;t see how it makes sense to drop all inter-borough tolls?  The point is to reduce induced driving, not to somewhat encourage New Yorkers to drive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am no pro on NYC, but just because people live within the greater city, that shouldn't discourage them from driving. Didn't I read something within the NYT, maybe the results of a study by Bruce Shaller pre-DOT, that had surprising results about how many trips were generated by Manhattan residents, and NYC residents overall? I don't see how it makes sense to drop all inter-borough tolls?  The point is to reduce induced driving, not to somewhat encourage New Yorkers to drive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hilary</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39782</link>
		<dc:creator>Hilary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39782</guid>
		<description>Can someone please explain why the Shore Parkway in Brooklyn has to become a truck route? Is this an essential part of the plan, or just an add-on that Sam has been pushing for years?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can someone please explain why the Shore Parkway in Brooklyn has to become a truck route? Is this an essential part of the plan, or just an add-on that Sam has been pushing for years?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlexB</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39780</link>
		<dc:creator>AlexB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39780</guid>
		<description>This is a much more comprehensive and thought out version of congestion pricing in my view.  Makes a lot more sense in terms of getting into the CBD.  New Yorkers shouldn&#039;t be charged for driving from neighborhood to neighborhood where the transit options are poor or non-existent (SI-BK, Qns-BX).  The only problem is that ALL the bridges and highways are congested in the NYC region, not just the ones into the CBD.  The FDR  in lower Manhattan is one of the least crowded expressways in the city during rush hour, for example.

Another element that could be added to this plan would be to take one lane from every major highway and bridge that is otherwise toll-less and make it a toll lane for about $5.  This way, people could pay to cross the Verrazano or the Throgs Neck or ride on the Cross Bronx or BQE quickly.  Imagine paying $15 to go from Queens to Jersey ($5 for the Throgs Neck, $5 for the Cross Bronx and &amp;5 for the GWB) and being able to go 60 mph the whole time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a much more comprehensive and thought out version of congestion pricing in my view.  Makes a lot more sense in terms of getting into the CBD.  New Yorkers shouldn't be charged for driving from neighborhood to neighborhood where the transit options are poor or non-existent (SI-BK, Qns-BX).  The only problem is that ALL the bridges and highways are congested in the NYC region, not just the ones into the CBD.  The FDR  in lower Manhattan is one of the least crowded expressways in the city during rush hour, for example.</p>
<p>Another element that could be added to this plan would be to take one lane from every major highway and bridge that is otherwise toll-less and make it a toll lane for about $5.  This way, people could pay to cross the Verrazano or the Throgs Neck or ride on the Cross Bronx or BQE quickly.  Imagine paying $15 to go from Queens to Jersey ($5 for the Throgs Neck, $5 for the Cross Bronx and &amp;5 for the GWB) and being able to go 60 mph the whole time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Annie</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39779</link>
		<dc:creator>Annie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39779</guid>
		<description>Charles, in response to your comment which said, &quot;I am not encouraged by the bullet that says: &#039;Widen Staten Island Expressway. Twin Goethals Bridge.&#039;,&quot; I agree and am one of the first people to oppose road widening projects. However, realistically, if you are going to reroute traffic which currently travels from Brooklyn to NJ via Manhattan to now use Staten Island, some additional road capacity will be needed. Sure, a grand vision of transit and from Brooklyn to NJ is beautiful but the second best is to at least keep all of the unnecessary thru-trips now traveling on Canal St and other already-congested Manhattan streets, away from Manhattan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charles, in response to your comment which said, "I am not encouraged by the bullet that says: 'Widen Staten Island Expressway. Twin Goethals Bridge.'," I agree and am one of the first people to oppose road widening projects. However, realistically, if you are going to reroute traffic which currently travels from Brooklyn to NJ via Manhattan to now use Staten Island, some additional road capacity will be needed. Sure, a grand vision of transit and from Brooklyn to NJ is beautiful but the second best is to at least keep all of the unnecessary thru-trips now traveling on Canal St and other already-congested Manhattan streets, away from Manhattan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ln</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39778</link>
		<dc:creator>ln</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39778</guid>
		<description>Absolutely get the trucks out of manhattan, those guys are dangerous that have no business being on city streets and they have no idea how to drive on them. They simply do not fit here. Charge em per axle to come in the city very BIG bucks or ban them altogether...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely get the trucks out of manhattan, those guys are dangerous that have no business being on city streets and they have no idea how to drive on them. They simply do not fit here. Charge em per axle to come in the city very BIG bucks or ban them altogether...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niccolo Macchiavelli</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39777</link>
		<dc:creator>Niccolo Macchiavelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39777</guid>
		<description>And now he puts forth this thing that sort of throws all the cards up in the air and serves to disrupt the TBTA-MTA connection.  It really threatens the only road to transit transfer of dedicated money.  And it does it at a time when CP is at least on the table.  He pitched this on WNYC just after PlaNYC was announced.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And now he puts forth this thing that sort of throws all the cards up in the air and serves to disrupt the TBTA-MTA connection.  It really threatens the only road to transit transfer of dedicated money.  And it does it at a time when CP is at least on the table.  He pitched this on WNYC just after PlaNYC was announced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39776</link>
		<dc:creator>Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39776</guid>
		<description>Indeed. Sam&#039;s work on behalf of the parking garage industry to kill the post-9/11 carpool rule was less than impressive. The report he published was just a joke. I think this was TA and Straphanger&#039;s debunking of Sam&#039;s report....

http://www.transalt.org/info/SOVBanImpacts.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed. Sam's work on behalf of the parking garage industry to kill the post-9/11 carpool rule was less than impressive. The report he published was just a joke. I think this was TA and Straphanger's debunking of Sam's report....</p>
<p><a href="http://www.transalt.org/info/SOVBanImpacts.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.transalt.org/info/SOVBanImpacts.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niccolo Macchiavelli</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39774</link>
		<dc:creator>Niccolo Macchiavelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39774</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t forget to thank Sam for removing the HOV requirement on the &quot;free&quot; bridges after 911 when there was still a political will for congestion relief.  And, don&#039;t forget to point out his self-interested behavior in that regard.  Maybe even pick up some of the self-interest stones we have been throwing at Brodsky and Weprin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don't forget to thank Sam for removing the HOV requirement on the "free" bridges after 911 when there was still a political will for congestion relief.  And, don't forget to point out his self-interested behavior in that regard.  Maybe even pick up some of the self-interest stones we have been throwing at Brodsky and Weprin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Littlefield</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-39770</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Littlefield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/#comment-39770</guid>
		<description>I more or less agree, except that the &quot;free&quot; bridges ought to have a lower charge that represents the cost of maintaining the bridges and the connecting highway system.  There is no need for those bridges to carry the transit system.

The only problem -- you could have an empty FDR and a packed BQE during mid-days.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I more or less agree, except that the "free" bridges ought to have a lower charge that represents the cost of maintaining the bridges and the connecting highway system.  There is no need for those bridges to carry the transit system.</p>
<p>The only problem -- you could have an empty FDR and a packed BQE during mid-days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
