While the city has worked to explain the tactics it uses to curtail crime, its strategy in issuing parking summonses remains a poorly understood area of law enforcement

So, the Times is getting behind the windshield mentality and flatly saying that parking illegally is something other than a "crime"?

Since Mr. Bloomberg took office, the city has hired 793 more traffic enforcement agents and doubled some penalties, collecting 64 percent more in fines in fiscal year 2008 than it did in 2002. During the last fiscal year, it collected more than $624 million in parking fines — more than the city spends to run the Department of Transportation.

First off, bravo for the Bloomberg administration. But apparently even doubling some penalties is not enough to prevent people from continuing to violate the parking regulations.

“It’s a growing recognition that the city is using parking enforcement as a means of revenue generation, not as a means of traffic management or safety management,” he said.

What's wrong with revenue generation? A parking ticket represents a transfer of wealth from a privileged minority (car owners), to help fund important city services that all depend on - car owners and non owners alike.

“Chief Scagnelli will say, ‘Let’s not forget why we’re all here: We’re here to move traffic, move traffic, move traffic, reduce injuries, move traffic, move traffic, move traffic, reduce accidents, move traffic, move traffic, move traffic, reduce fatalities, move traffic, move traffic, move traffic,’ ” Mr. Pilecki said.

A 1960's-era traffic engineer?

Paragallo himself has seen drivers stop at lights, look around to make sure there isn't a cop looking and blow right through.

Funny, people keep telling me that only cyclists do that!

http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1228047313185750.xml&coll=1&thispage=1

Well he's half right. I'd be willing to forgive their decades of trampling around the city and crapping all over the transit system if they would put themselves, or just their cars, out to pasture. Otherwise, yes, this trough is going to be cash-only.

Meanwhile, again these are press reports, but the Ravitch proposal is for just PARTIAL funding of a STRIPPED DOWN capital plan that brings ongoing normal replacement below the level required to stop deterioration.

Unless Ravitch plans not to spend the additional payroll tax and toll revenue as it comes in, but bond against it, meaning paying for five years of investment for 30 or more, and being in an even worse situation five years from now.

That's what they did with the 1/8 sales tax increase for the 2005 to 2009 plan. All the future taxes we'll be forced to collect will have been spent a year from now.

But these are just news stories. I want to see the report before blowing my stack.

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE AND PUT BANKRUPTCY ON THE TABLE!

NOT the investment income of the rich, those who have supported higher government debt to offset income tax cuts and breaks for 25 years.

NOT the retirement income of those who ran up those debts and left them to the transit riders of today. Income that currently is subject to NO state and local tax in NYC.

NOT the income of public employees either, and here is why.

A payroll tax might be paid by the company, but so is the income tax, via withholding. The actual loser depends on power in the labor market -- does the employer force the employee pay by offsetting by diminished wages or higher health insurance copayments, or does the employee force the employer to pay? Who will have more power in the labor market, based on supply and demand, the next few years?

Well, by arbitration, contract or law, public employees cannot have their wages cut or their health insurance contributions (generally zero) increased, so you can rest assured that if the payroll tax is assessed on the City of New York then the taxpayers of the City of New York, and minimum wage workers who will see their services cut, will be made to suffer.

Those who have had the best deals will be asked to give up nothing. They were probably the people who were allowed to testify at the closed "public hearing."

When will the debate be held asking why it's fair for future wage earners to be screwed by a $27 billion debt left to them by current retirees who wanted more for less, while those retirees pay nothing? NEVER!

Absolutely absurd. This city thrives despite automobiles, not because of them.

We'd probably have no problem getting the Olympics here if it were not for the destructive environment they have caused.

Costs far outstrip benefits: about $1.5 billion in road accidents; $13 billion in congestion alone.