NY Times Calls for Conjestion Pricing to Ignore Highways

From today's NY Times editorial page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/opinion/26wed4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(excerpt)

Riders have a right to be skeptical, especially after the M.T.A.’s recent flip-flop. Lawmakers must include tough language to ensure that all congestion pricing revenues are dedicated to promised improvements in transit. That is essential for public support and to coax commuters out of their cars and on to mass transportation.

Wrong. Pay back the Westway funds as a start before embarking on any new such tax schemes.

Open up the MTA books to the public, as canceling Westway was a subsidy for dishonest mass transit bureaucratic bookkeeping, and a distraction from all of the funds squandered by the Pentagon and such criminal entities as the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (tobacco cigarette mercantilism protection scheme).

'Conjestion Pricing' Tax Scheme's Disregard Highway Planning

Proposed new tax schemes to fleece vehicularists -- $2.75 billion annually around and within Washington, D.C. -- with ZERO capacity additions.

Report for the Greater Washington, D.C. 'Council of Governments' limits new lanes to a single new I-395 Virgina HOV/HOT lane, and NONE anywhere within Washington, D.C.

Yet it's estimated $2.75 billion revenue intake could pay for a $25 billion capacious primarily existing corridor footprint new design underground Washington, D.C. "Big Dig" with a linear park covered "North Central Freeway" multi-model Grand Arc Mall Tunnel that includes an undergrounded and capacity added Red Line (Metropolitan Branch B&O Corridor) connection to an underground 'Inner Loop' described here....

Nonetheless the 'COG' report bears false witness about the physical feasibilities any such highways -- a Washington, D.C. "Big Dig" enjoys far more favorable soil conditions than Boston's.

Meanwhile, New York City Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hard for such a program with likewise ZERO highway additions- despite the clear needs and feasibilities.

The problem is not physical, but rather political.

Earthquake Hazard Battery Park City Underscores Official Plannings Disregard for Safety

Foolishly Placed Buildings on Landfill WITHOUT Foundations to Bedrock May Imperil Vital Transportation Links.

http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nycadd4.html

As for the subsoil conditions in NYC itself, the well-known Manhattan bedrock rises to the surface in the northern part of the island, extending also to the north. The bedrock falls deeper as we go to the south and east, forming still a reachable foundation for buildings in Midtown, but generally not as far south as in Downtown. Because bedrock forms a solid base for a building, it, despite also transmitting seismic shockwaves effectively, will be a better choice than soft soil. The ample soft soil in New York would be the cause for the city's major harm in case of an earthquake. Not only does it amplify the seismic waves and direct them to the surface, but parts of the city land are also prone to so-called liquefaction, an abrupt loss of soil cohesion. The sand particles lose their friction resistance under the earthquake vibration and get mixed up with water beneath the ground surface, naturally losing any support it gives to a structure. A particularly clear example of its effect was the accident in Brooklyn, where building a sewer in reclaimed land with a vibratory pile driver collapsed four houses within two blocks with the loss of a life. The agitated soil had given way even from that distance and led to the collapse. Much of the waterfront is filled-in and reclaimed from the rivers with soil that is prone to liquefaction, especially below water level. The most notable of these landfills is the Battery Park City in Downtown Manhattan, which would face severe problems in a major earthquake -- as would do many other vital services, like several major hospitals or the Long Island airports on fills, with JFK also near Rockaway.

An earthquake could make BPC buildings tilt, possibly towards the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel portal approach, requiring their subsequent demolition as a hazard to transport.

Perhaps this is also applicable to the irresponsibly placed Chase Manhattan buildings immediately along the south side of the Holland Tunnel in New Jersey? I would not be too surprised given the extreme disregard to transport amongst 'new urbanist' planning.

New N.Y. State Gov. Patterson Sells Out on 'Conjestion' Pricing

Gov. Patterson

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/nyregion/22congestion.html?em&ex=1206331200&en=85525bdb332c0d91&ei=5087%0A

Gov. David A. Paterson added his support on Friday to the idea of charging drivers to enter the busiest sections of Manhattan, rescuing the controversial program from the brink of death by submitting a bill to the State Legislature to establish it.

The turnaround came after an impassioned pitch to the governor from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg behind closed doors at City Hall on Wednesday, when Mr. Paterson privately expressed support for the proposal, city officials said. He warned the mayor that he first had to tell Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who has shown little inclination to approve it, the officials said.

Mr. Paterson’s blessing, which came as Bloomberg aides have been furiously lobbying the city and state lawmakers whose approval is needed for the program, could prove crucial in making the proposal to charge most drivers $8 to enter the zone below 61st Street on weekdays a reality.

Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns of the residents of New York City and its suburbs: the need to reduce congestion on our streets and roads, and thereby reduce pollution, and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvement,” Mr. Paterson said in a statement.

Winning the support of Mr. Paterson, who has far more experience and good will among state lawmakers than his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, represents something of a coup for Mr. Bloomberg, who has made congestion pricing an important element of his second-term agenda.

The Throgs Neck Bridge, which opened January 11, 1961, and which represents Long Island's only continuous modern interstate highway route to the mainland (via the Clearview Expressway to the Long Island Expressway) is in such poor shape that trucks are limited to using the middle lane in each direction with a 30 mph speed limit.

The Verazano Narrows Bridge, which opened November 21, 1964, with its lower deck opening June 28, 1969, represents Long Island's only other modern interstate highway route to the mainland (though without a continuous modern interstate highway route connection via the pre-WW2 spec Gowanus Expressway), and is the latest such structure constructed. Although it was to have a easterly connection via a proposed Cross Brooklyn Expressway that would connect to an Atlantic Expressway along the Sunrise 'highway' (surface street) corridor, that, along with every other planned but not yet built highway was canceled en-mass by then New York City Mayor Lindsey in 1969-71. A planned modern interstate highway bridge connecting Long Island's Route 135 to Westchester County's I-287 would be canceled in 1973, while a modern replacement for Manhattan's antiquated West Side Highway would be politically raped for appropriating its funds for non-highway subways by 1985.

Although 'conjestion' pricing funds shall come from vehicularists, who already have their toll monies so diverted, all we seem to hear about these funds being used is non-highway mass transit.

Obviously, this is sustained by a nexis of political money power largely centered around Manhattan's Central Park of people who exemplify a near total disregard of the importance of road infrastructure that we saw in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" about a Manhattan flooded and frozen, with nothing coming into the city, yet no one seems to mind the lack of food.




A look at Gov. Patterson's Secretary 'ex' Jesuit Charles J. O'Byrne