New York City Mayor Bloomberg, far left, with members of Congress at yesterday's press conference. (Photo: Epoch Times)

Bloomberg, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) were joined by the Democratic mayors of Philadelphia, Jersey City, and Trenton at a Penn Station press conference intended to spotlight Republican senators' successful bid to deny Amtrak any U.S. DOT funds next year unless the train network accepts firearms in baggage.

Local reporters found Bloomberg unabashedly critical of the Senate GOP's move:

“If anyone in Congress thinks the threat of terrorist attacks on trains have gone away, they are mistaken,” the mayor said. Bloomberg said that the Amtrak security was already pretty lax, and if the new bill passes, there wouldn’t be anything keeping someone from carrying multiple assault weapons in their baggage.

“And the American people will blame the Senate if a terrorist attack does occur,” he said. “It has nothing to do with the second amendment and the right to bear arms, but everything to do with keeping passengers safe.”

Nor is yesterday's press conference the first gauntlet thrown over the Amtrak amendment, which would force the train network to significantly strengthen its security screening process without providing any federal aid to help with such a move.

On Thursday a gun-rights group in Washington state accused Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) of showing "bigotry" against gun owners by voting against the amendment -- a charge aimed at pressuring Democrats into keeping the provision in the final version of the 2010 U.S. DOT spending bill.

The final word may not come until next month at the earliest, when negotiators from the Senate and House, which did not take up the guns-on-Amtrak question, will unveil the merged version of their two chambers' transportation bills.

It's an organization put together by Govs. Ed Rendell (D-PA) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- men strongly committed to the idea that infrastructure investment is of critical importance for a nation's economic health, and should enjoy bipartisan support. A timely mission, given the deteriorating state of the country's infrastructure and economy, and the new threats posed by rising energy costs and global climate change.

The critical nature of the challenge was at front and center in a discussion held yesterday, co-hosted by BAF and the National Governors Association and featuring former legislators Dick Gephardt and Newt Gingrich as guest speakers.

Rendell and Bloomberg opened the session with a typical call to arms -- saying, simply, that we can wait no longer to act and invest boldly. Gephardt and Gingrich, by contrast, focused almost exclusively on the biggest challenge, and in many ways, the only one that matters: money, money, and money.

Both men are convinced that Americans can be persuaded to pay more for infrastructure investments provided that a few conditions are met. Namely, they'd need to be able to see progress (and quickly) and they'd have to feel confident that money wasn't being wasted through incompetence or political chicanery. The hard part is understanding how to get the government to satisfy these conditions.

The two men recommend simple (sounding) steps. The government should use a capital budget apart from the annual budget process (as do corporations), so that investments aren't counted in the same way as normal expenses. Mega-projects should be on the agenda -- surprisingly, to me at least, this came directly from arch-conservative Gingrich.

Big projects arouse public interest and pride, said the former Speaker, who had in mind for the country a basic rail network with trains traveling at 110 mph or more and a true high-speed, Mag-Lev, nationwide, best-in-the-world system on top of that.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, timid initial spending makes later spending more difficult, goes the thinking, by accomplishing too little to build corporate interest or public attention. Small things are easier to kill. Beyond that, proper incentive structures, decentralization of spending, and private sector involvement, among other things, should minimize waste and help to earn public confidence.

But that still leaves the question of where to find the necessary money. Both men indicated that user fees would have to enter the equation; Gephardt, in particular, singled out variable tolling as a necessary step. A gas tax increase, establishing a floor on the price at the pump, would help to fill out the coffers.

Both are good ideas, but difficult to implement in the real world. Under the best of circumstances, it would be a challenge to raise funds on this scale, however great the merits of the projects to be funded, and these are not the best of circumstances.

What's more, there is a chicken and egg problem to their strategy. Given public confidence in and excitement about spending, there will be a willingness to pay higher taxes. But spending at the appropriate scale can't be begun without a dedicated funding stream.

Given Congress' discomfort with the current deficit, it is impossible to move ambitiously without new taxes. And given the public's discomfort with Congress, it is impossible to get new taxes without some deficit-funded demonstration that the government can handle big investments wisely.

Which is why both Congress and the White House are moving forward cautiously on transportation investment -- there is no other option. As significant a change in direction as the Oberstar bill is, it isn't a revolution. It amends the previous order, but does not at all overthrow it. And the administration? Well, a two-year delay is just about the opposite of a bold push for action.

When one is in a shallow hole, one can escape with a single great leap. But when one is in a deep hole, one can only get out by scratching and clawing.

Photo: AP/Post-Standard

In politics, reputation matters. The scapegoating of the MTA has undermined the political case for transit funding and given cover to the hypocrites in Albany who blame the MTA, instead of themselves, for the agency's funding woes. Looking forward, it is critical that the MTA burnish its reputation as an effective and accountable public agency and excellent investment for public funds. There are many political forces that benefit from keeping the MTA as a scapegoat, its reputation besmirched. So, a clean bill of health for the MTA requires an unimpeachable, politically formidable force far above the gutter of the New York political fray. How about President Obama?

The president has spent enormous energy restoring public confidence in the banking system. A key part of his efforts has been the Treasury Department’s careful scrutiny of bank management and finances. Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson should ask President Obama to help restore public confidence in the MTA by ordering the Federal Transit Administration to send in a team of management, finance and policy experts. The MTA receives millions in federal support and the U.S. government has a strong interest in seeing that money well spent. The FTA team would definitively and publicly assess the state of the MTA, detailing both its good and bad management practices while clarifying and vetting agency finances.

Most transit experts believe the MTA is a relatively well run public agency which compares favorably with other big American and foreign transit systems. The agency’s biggest problem is that the state and city have spent the last two decades reducing their financial support, loading the agency with debt, and making it overly dependent on volatile, cyclical funding like the mortgage recording tax. The FTA's assessment would bring these facts to the fore and lay the political groundwork for a stronger case for transit funding.

A face-to-face back in April. Photo: Scoop08.

I have made the case to his incoming administration that a lot of the resources have to go directly to the cities, which is where these projects will get managed and built.

We've said it before and it definitely bears repeating: This is a big opportunity and Obama can't afford to blow it. If his team is serious about its sustainability goals -- and by most accounts the energy portion of the plan is legit -- they'll heed Bloomberg. Directing transportation funds to cities is one of the most effective ways to support transit, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure. The bigger the share cities get, the better. But that's not what one of the key players, House Appropriations Chair David Obey, has in mind:

Yesterday, Congressman David Obey (D-WI), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, stated on National Public Radio that stimulus funding directed towards transportation infrastructure will be allocated directly to states to determine how best to use the American tax dollars.

That's a recipe for disaster -- funneling tens of billions of dollars to highway-builders while starving the agencies that do the most to give people better transportation choices and more livable neighborhoods. On the campaign trail, candidate Obama promised he would talk about cities once in office. Now the inauguration is less than two weeks away. I don't think it's too early to say: "Let's hear it."

In a piece from the March issue of Outside Magazine that seems especially relevant today, Tim Sohn writes about public space reform in New York City. His article is accompanied by an illustration of what the future of our city could look like: complete streets with dedicated bus and bike lanes, traffic calming gardens, and sidewalks wide enough to accommodate window shoppers without slowing pedestrian traffic -- none of which would depend on Albany for approval.

Recently, a New Yorker (let's call him Tim) was forced off a sidewalk by a double-wide stroller, a large dog, and an elderly pedestrian all traveling abreast. So he shimmied between parked cars, nearly collided with a bike messenger going the wrong way up a one-way street, and walked through the exhaust-choked margin of the avenue while fantasizing about a future in which New York City's clogged streets are reconfigured in favor of pedestrians and cyclists. A pipe dream? Nope, and you can thank advocacy/watchdog group Transportation Alternatives. New York is a walker's city, but its streets, which represent 85 percent of its public space, are monopolized by the fume-spewing, driving minority.

"For so many years, the streets have just been for cars, like NASCAR speedways," says Paul Steely White, TA's executive director. "We're trying to reclaim the city for the people." How? Well, thanks in part to TA's dogged pursuit of transportation reform, the city recently took a major step forward by retaining the services of the godfather of anti-automobile urbanism: Copenhagen-based urban designer Jan Gehl, whose Gehl Architects has helped draft plans for Stockholm, Melbourne, and, most famously, London. Gehl is now in the midst of an American invasion, having signed on to consult not only for New York but for Seattle and, possibly, San Francisco. The first step, he says, is getting people to think anew about urban life. "We can talk about it in terms of ingrown habits," he says. "Many people don't ask for changes because they don't know that changes are possible. "But NYC's hiring of Gehl's team is indicative of a general upsurge in both awareness of the need for change and the city's willingness to take action."

In April 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled PlaNYC 2030, an ambitious 127-point strategy for the greening of the city, including ample transportation and public-space reforms. Already, pilot projects have been implemented all over New York to show people what the near future might look like: new painted, protected bike lanes on Ninth Avenue; dedicated bus lanes in Midtown; countdown signals at crosswalks; HOV/bus lanes on the Manhattan Bridge; landscaped pedestrian islands in Brooklyn's Grand Army Plaza; a lot more bike racks. And even Bloomberg's controversial proposal for a London-style congestion charge ($8 to drive into Manhattan) has its supporters. According to White, "A year ago, congestion pricing was impossible, all this other stuff was impossible, but now it's a very fluid situation, and that's exciting." Gehl sees progress, too. "In New York, they are beginning to ask the right questions," he says. "What do we have cities for? Is it for getting from A to B or is it for developing the culture?" In his estimation, New Yorkers already know the answer: "The 21st-century lifestyle has arrived in New York, but, apart from the great parks, the spaces have not been developed to accommodate it. Yet."

A PDF (4.8 MB) of the illustration can be downloaded here

In town for a speech and fundraising events, Obama was introduced at Cooper Union by Mayor Bloomberg this morning.

WNYC reports:

Speaking not far from Wall Street, Barack Obama told a Manhattan audience that the US needs better oversight of national financial markets, help for financially stressed homeowners and an additional $30 billion stimulus package.

REPORTER: Later, in an exclusive interview with WNYC, Senator Obama said he supports congestion pricing.

OBAMA: I think Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for congestion pricing is a thoughtful and innovative approach to the problem.

REPORTER: Obama said congestion pricing should not replace federal funding of mass transit.

Maybe this will take some more air out of the right-wing conspiracy theory, propagated most vocally by Congressman Anthony Weiner.

In the interest of equal time (sort of), Bill Clinton has also expressed approval for pricing -- and cycling.

Photo: AP

Here are some more details about the residential parking permit program proposed today by Mayor Bloomberg and DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan:

• A residential parking permit (RPP) plan will be included in the congestion pricing legislation that will be introduced in the City Council and State Legislature.
  
• Though details still need to be worked out by the legislators, neighborhoods and Community Boards will have the choice to opt in to the program and propose their own curbside regulations and zone boundaries. Borough Presidents, Council members and DOT will also be involved in the process. "Community Boards will make the determinations and balance the various interests to form the most reasonable plan," DOT Commissioner Sadik-Khan said.
• The proposed community-driven process would look something like this, according the Mayor's press release: "Beginning in the fall of 2008, residents can petition for the establishment of an RPP zone in their neighborhood by submitting a request to their Community Board on a form that will be available on the DOT web-site. The Community Board will then be required to hold a public meeting. The Community Board's approved plan will be submitted to the Borough President and the local City Council member, who will both be required to approve the plan before it is implemented."
• Curbside regulations will vary from neighborhood to neighborhood but would likely be limited to very specific times and places. So, for example, if a neighborhood is worried that they'll become a park-and-ride location, only vehicles with permits would be allowed to park during a specific period of time during morning rush hour. For example:

 

• The RPP program will specifically be aimed at discouraging park-and-ride activity and to help residents secure parking in "neighborhoods that face pressure from large facilities like sports arenas," Bloomberg said.
• There could be "a small fee" for permits to help cover the administrative costs of running the program but the Mayor said that would be up to the legislators. "With oil at $108 a barrel and gasoline approaching $4 a gallon, $10 a year for parking isn't going to make that much of a difference to most people who can afford to have a car in the first place," Bloomberg said.
  
• New York City's RPP plan is being modeled on successful programs up and running in Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and London.
  
• The RPP program will not go forward if congestion pricing is not passed.
  

The Mayor's full press release can be found after the jump:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Department of Transportation (DOT) Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan today announced that the congestion pricing legislation that will be introduced in the City Council and State Legislature in the coming weeks will include a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program. The program is designed to give local residents priority for on-street parking in residential areas and to discourage park-and-ride activity by commuters. It will be tailored by neighborhood to address specific needs, and restrictions will vary based on neighborhood parking patterns. The announcement of the program follows a dozen community parking workshops held by DOT in 7 neighborhoods between November 2007 and February 2008. The announcement was made in Boerum Hill, a neighborhood where the program could hold great appeal to residents. All neighborhoods will have the opportunity to consider opting into the RPP program including communities where interest has already been expressed such as Brooklyn Heights, Long Island City, and the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan. Joining the Mayor and the Commissioner at today's announcement were Councilmember David Yassky and President of the Boerum Hill Association, Sue Wolfe.

"This is a promising and proven parking management strategy that together with congestion pricing will help us achieve one of the key goals of PlaNYC - cutting down on pollution-creating traffic and creating an environmentally sustainable transportation system for New York City," said Mayor Bloomberg. "A number of other cities, including Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, have long had successful residential parking permit programs. We are confident that it will succeed here too."

"Congestion Pricing is vital to the future of New York City and a Residential Parking Permit program will help to ensure that neighborhoods are not overrun with commuters looking for parking before they get on a subway to enter the pricing zone," said Commissioner Sadik-Khan. "The Residential Parking Permit program will give parking priority to local residents while also balancing the need for some visitor and commercial parking."

The RPP program is designed to address concerns that congestion pricing will entice commuters to drive into neighborhoods just outside the pricing zone, park their cars for the day on a residential street, and then take the subway or other transit into Manhattan to avoid paying a congestion fee. Recent studies by DOT show that many of the neighborhoods that border the congestion pricing zone are already at or near on street parking capacity. Comments and feedback from residents at the community parking workshops helped to shape the RPP program being introduced today.

"Parking is a huge headache for residents in Downtown Brooklyn neighborhoods and residential parking permits will be a real step towards making daily life a little easier," said Councilmember David Yassky. "I applaud Mayor Bloomberg and his Administration for giving this approach a try."

"We're pleased that DOT is creating a residential parking program. They've listened to people in neighborhoods like Boerum Hill, who are impacted by drivers who don't live here - circling our streets, polluting the air and placing our pedestrians in jeopardy," said Sue Wolfe, President of Boerum Hill Association. "People should use the terrific public transportation system that we as New Yorkers are very lucky to have and Mayor Bloomberg's plan to improve that system and reduce congestion should be enacted."

Under the program, residents with a permit displayed on their vehicle will be able to park in an RPP designated space all day. For instance, cars without a permit for a particular zone will not be able to park in RPP spaces during a set 90-minute time period (e.g. 10-11:30 a.m.) each day. In this instance, RPP spaces could be restricted to one side of the street to provide some parking for visitors during the 90-minute RPP time period. The timing of this 90-minute period could be adjusted depending on neighborhood characteristics, but these 90-minute periods would restrict out-of-neighborhood cars from parking for long periods of time. Visitors coming to the neighborhood to shop, use neighborhood services or conduct other business will only be restricted from the RPP spaces during the 90-minute period, but will have access to more spaces at other times of the day. DOT will issue annual permits to residents who are able to show proof of vehicle registration at an address within the permit area.

Under the proposed bill, beginning in the fall of 2008, residents can petition for the establishment of an RPP zone in their neighborhood by submitting a request to their Community Board on a form that will be available on the DOT web-site. The Community Board will then be required to hold a public meeting. The Community Board's approved plan will be submitted to the Borough President and the local City Councilmember, who will both be required to approve the plan before it is implemented.

Residential parking permit systems are already in place in other major U.S. cities, including Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle, and have been shown to be an effective way to manage parking. RPP in New York City would offer priority to those neighborhoods just outside the congestion pricing zone. The program will be closely monitored to see how well it works.

Following United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten's "deeply troubling" letter to Mayor Bloomberg earlier this month protesting the city's directive to reduce parking placard issues by 20 percent, this week UFT chapter leaders and delegates approved a resolution not only demanding an exemption from placard reform, but calling on the city to increase the number of placards and parking spots reserved for motoring teachers.

This in and of itself is not terribly surprising, except that in December UFT members passed another resolution condemning America's avaricious consumption of fossil fuels, dependence on foreign oil, lack of interest in alternative energy, and production of greenhouse gases.

Hmm... where have we seen this before?

Here are the two rezos in their entirety, first from December:

Resolution on Protecting the Environment -- Reducing Dependence on Fossil Fuels

Whereas, it is a well established scientific fact that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, resulting in great dangers to our environment; and...

Whereas, the use of fossil fuels such as oil and coal results in greenhouse gas emissions; and

Whereas, little is being done in the U.S. to reduce the use of fossil fuels and develop alternative energy sources; therefore be it

Resolved, that as an important first step to reduce the use of fossil fuels and lessen dependence on foreign oil we urge the adoption of a meaningful increase in fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon or higher for vehicles; and be if [sic] further

Resolved, that other steps be taken to reduce the use of fossil fuels and lessen dependence on foreign oil including the requirement that utilities generate at least 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources; and be it further

Resolved, that the nation reward the development of alternative energy sources such as bio fuels and solar power, which would help free the U.S. from imported oil which amounts to 60% of the oil consumed in our country.

And here is this week's resolution:

Resolution Opposing Any Reduction in Parking Permit [sic]

WHEREAS, many New York City public schools are difficult to reach by public transportation, many teachers travel between schools, and most schools do not provide off street parking for staff so that educators need to rely on street parking; and

WHEREAS, educators receive parking permits from the Department of Education that enable them to park on a portion of their school block during school hours only; and

WHEREAS, these permits, unlike Department of Transportation Permits, do not allow holders to ignore meter or no parking zone or alternate side regulations; and

WHEREAS, on numerous occasions the UFT has raised the need for more parking for teachers and has been told by the city and DOE that this is an economic bargaining issue; and

WHEREAS, the City has recently announced a plan to reduce the number of parking permits for all city employees by 20 percent; and

WHEREAS, available parking is clearly an incentive to attract teachers to high-needs schools, and rescinding permits at a time when we're making strides to attract the best and brightest to teaching in the city makes no sense; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the UFT urge Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein to exempt UFT members from any reduction in parking permits; and

RESOLVED, that we call on the Mayor and Chancellor to join with the UFT to look for ways to increase the number of both parking permits and parking spaces for educators.

Touting the good news from 2007, the Mayor noted that New York City's streets are getting safer:

In 2007, we made the safest big city in the nation safer than it has been in generations. The fewest traffic deaths in nearly a century. Historic lows in jail violence. Historic lows in fire fatalities. And the fewest homicides recorded in modern history. This is New York City today.

And, in a roundabout admission that more can be done to improve safety, Bloomberg mentioned a new initiative aimed at making the city more livable for senior citizens (like his own 99-year-old mom), taking a page from Transportation Alternatives' Safe Routes for Seniors program:

Today I'm announcing a major effort called 'The All Ages Project.' In collaboration with the City Council and the New York Academy of Medicine, this project will completely re-envision what it means to grow old in New York... For instance: How can we ensure that more seniors are cared for in their own homes, rather than in institutions? And how do we make our city easier to get around in? Next month, we will begin to address that second challenge with traffic engineering improvements at 25 high-accident areas which are especially problematic for seniors.

He wrapped up with a lengthy push for PlaNYC initiatives, including a brief pitch for congestion pricing:

With the State's blessing, we'll also use technology to create a system of congestion pricing -- something no other American city has done. It will help us achieve four critical, inter-connected goals: reducing traffic congestion; raising money for mass transit; improving our air quality; and fighting climate change.

In 2004, after John Kerry and John Edwards conceded a second term in the White House to George W. Bush, the editors of Seattle's liberal-tarian weekly The Stranger published an essay entitled "The Urban Archipelago," calling on urban Democrats and their political candidates to unite on issues relevant to cities, where the majority of Americans live. Though an enjoyable read, most of the essay isn't suitable for print on a family blog, but here's a representative passage:

With all the talk of the growth of exurbs and the hand-wringing over facile demographic categories like "security moms," you may be under the impression that an urban politics wouldn't speak to many people. But according to the 2000 Census, 226 million people reside inside metropolitan areas -- a number that positively dwarfs the 55 million people who live outside metro areas. The 85 million people who live in strictly defined central city limits also outnumber those rural relics. When the number of city-dwellers in the United States is quadruple the number of rural people, we can put simple democratic majorities to work for our ideals.

According to the New York-based Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, those ideals include funding for police, health care, housing, utilities, transit and other infrastructure -- and, for the most part, still aren't being talked about in the heart of the 2008 presidential primary season by either dominant party. So DMI, in association with The Nation magazine, launched MayorTV, a series of interviews with mayors from coast of coast, in which they talk about why cities matter and challenge White House hopefuls to make urban America part of the national discussion. (Mayor Michael Bloomberg has so far not participated.)

In addition to being "an ATM for the major presidential candidates," said DMI Executive Director Andrea Batista Schlesinger in a recent TV interview, "If cities aren't functioning, being the economic engines for their regions, then it becomes the problem of suburbs and exurbs, and it becomes the problem of the country."

Video: Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, via MayorTV/YouTube

Cycling intimately acquaints you with every bump, slice, crease, divot, ledge, ripple and of course pothole in a street, because not noticing means you might get thrown off your steed into bone-breaking and life ending car traffic.

While riding along Lafayette Street in Manhattan, or Bergen Street in Brooklyn, or essentially anywhere in New York City, what I notice is surfaces that can only be described as poor and frankly dangerous for someone on a bike.

New York City is not the exception in this. It's been true in every city I have ever lived in in the United States, which includes some geographic and cultural diversity. Abroad, that's not so much the case, particularly in the prosperous countries of Western Europe. They notice the difference when the travel here, let me assure you. A few years ago when I was living in Boston a friend from Germany surveyed the pot-holed streets in Cambridge around the prestigious university of Harvard with some amazement.

"It reminds me of a Third-world country," he said with a grin. "Apparently no one cares!"

I don't think that's the case, but streets here do seem unusually bad. Why is that so?

When I swerved to avoid a pothole, I would tend to curse City Hall, and particularly the Department of Transportation. It's responsible for the streets. Why doesn't it do a better job maintaining them?

Then it hit me that my logic really wasn't inclusive enough. Most of the bumps and bruises on city streets relate to what is underneath the streets, because most of the bumps and bruises are caused by repairs after the streets have been opened up for some kind of work on electrical, gas, steam, water, phone or subway lines. And DOT doesn't own these utilities; other institutions do, including private companies. When Verizon puts in a new phone cable, or Con Edison repairs a gas line, its crews tear up the street, and its crews repair them. And not surprisingly, their crews may not put as high a priority on repairing streets as they do on installing phone cables or gas lines.

Then there are the other public agencies with interest below the street, like the water lines managed by the city's water department, and the subway and train lines managed by big public agencies that answer to the state.

What it adds up to is many institutions, all working beneath the streets, and then repairing them afterward, often with private subcontractors, which then adds an additional variable to the task of keeping streets neat.

If you look at the relatively smooth streets of places like Germany, France or Scandinavia, what you generally find is fewer private companies laying public infrastructure like water, gas and electric lines, and more public ones.

New York City and American cities follow the Anglo-Saxon model, derived from Great Britain, of letting private companies do much of the primary work in installing infrastructure. This saves taxes in the short run, but can create inefficiencies and bumpy streets in the long run. As I said in my latest book that just came out in paperback, Beneath the Metropolis, London didn't even have a public water system until early in the 20^th century. Before that it had a half dozen competing private water companies, all tearing up streets to lay their own lines, (and sometimes sabotaging their competitors). New York had a similar condition with its gas and electric lines before a company with the name Edison "consolidated" them into one corporation.

Having multiple private companies and public agencies responsible for the care of the street creates many opportunities for miscommunications and poor or faulty work. Folks I know at DOT tell me quite a few horror stories.

Is there a way we can make our streets better, without completely reorganizing our economy? There is, and that is better public oversight. As I have talked about regarding other issues in the city, an important but relatively neglected part of government is diligent and conscientious oversight of private companies doing public work. This can be making sure a developer puts in the right kind of escalator in a subway station, to making sure there are good paving standards for private companies to follow, and having enough resources to make sure those paving standards are met.

While Mayor Bloomberg's recent plan to send out squads of folks on foot and bike to methodically inspect the quality of the streets is a good one, what is needed even more is rigorous enforcement of standards that already exist for the care and maintenance of streets, regardless of who is doing the work.

Flickr photos by JSSchumacher and Susan NYC

"If you were to design the ultimate system, you would have mass transit be free and charge an enormous amount for cars."

So said Mayor Michael Bloomberg last April, right about the time he unveiled his plan to charge motorists a fee to drive into Manhattan's central business district. Eight months later, as the mayor's original proposal mutates for better or worse, the MTA is hours away from raising transit fares. Neither idea has exactly caught fire with the public, and the fare hikes could actually end up a foil for congestion pricing -- a plan originally intended as a sustained financial boost for the transit system.

And then there's Theodore "Ted" Kheel. The environmentalist, philanthropist, and renowned labor attorney has lobbied for free transit in New York for over 40 years. Last February he commissioned a $100,000 study that, as it turns out, could put the city's money where the mayor's mouth is. A summary of findings released late last week shows that if the city were to impose a $16 congestion fee ($32 for trucks) below 60th Street in Manhattan, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, along with higher curbside parking fees and a taxi surcharge, the MTA could remove its turnstiles and fareboxes forever.

Relying on exhaustive analyses of dozens of factors ranging from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transit capacities to emissions and employment data, assembled in an interactive spreadsheet created by Charles Komanoff, the study, managed by the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility (IRUM) and researched by Joseph Clift, George Haikalis, Brian Ketcham and Carolyn Konheim, found that the Kheel Plan would:

• Reduce traffic within the Central Business District by 25% and within the entire city by nearly 10%. Auto trips into the CBD would drop by one-third.
• Save the public a staggering $4 billion a year in recovered productivity, or more than 100 million "vehicle hours" that would otherwise be spent in traffic. (Some 20% of this value would be realized by bus riders, 32% by truck, taxi and auto users within the CBD, and 48% by vehicle users in the rest of the city.)
• More than recoup revenues now generated by fares. The one-two punch of the $16 automobile toll ($3 billion annually), taxi fare surcharge ($340 million annually) and higher curbside parking fees ($500 million annually) would generate nearly $4 billion annually - enough to replace the $3.5 billion in current tolls and subway and bus farebox revenues and still leave an annual revenue stream of $500 million for improving and expanding transit.
• Provide universal no-fare transit with less crowding than today's service. Making transit free will be an enormous boon for all New Yorkers, particularly low-income residents, and lift, once and for all, the specter of fare hikes. The Kheel Plan also includes a strategy for handling the anticipated increase in ridership that will result in less, not more crowded trains and buses.
• Shorten travel time: Enable a one-third (34%) increase in vehicle speeds within the CBD and an average one-tenth (10%) increase in the rest of the city. A typical 12-minute taxi trip in the heart of midtown Manhattan would be trimmed to nine minutes, while five minutes would be shaved from the typical 55-minute ride for a non-CBD trip, say from Bayside to Bensonhurst. Bus travelers would also save time: a fare-free system would eliminate the tedious swiping of MetroCards that leads to frustrating boarding delays, thereby shortening a typical 20-minute bus ride to 15-16 minutes.
• Produce additional, significant benefits: The plan would generate an additional $2 billion in health cost savings and other benefits from reduced pollution, fewer traffic crashes, lower insurance costs, and increased tendencies to walk and bike - all due to diminished traffic levels.

"The PlaNYC proposal, while commendable and courageous, offers little if any relief to endlessly spiraling subway and bus fares," researchers conclude, while "the Kheel Plan banishes fare escalation from the civic horizon by abolishing the fare itself."

While it was developed independent of the Congestion Mitigation Commission process currently underway, its authors say the Kheel Plan "takes Mayor Bloomberg's visionary congestion pricing proposal to its logical conclusion." As Commission chairman Marc Shaw noted at yesterday's meeting, however, that logical conclusion is going to have to be something that "works in the real world" -- a world filled with term-limited City Council members, parking garage industry-funded lobbyists, a debt-laden MTA and various other challenges. Logical or not, one thing is for certain: With the Commission's aggressive timeline set to deliver an Implementation Plan to City Council by January 31 and Council scheduled to vote by March 28, a conclusion will be reached shortly.

Mayor Bloomberg plans
to announce today his support for a national carbon tax. In what his
aides are calling one of the most significant policy addresses of his
second and final term, the mayor will argue that directly taxing
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute
to climate change will slow global
warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation
— even if it results in higher gasoline prices in the short term.

Mr.
Bloomberg is scheduled to present his carbon tax proposal in a speech
this afternoon at a two-day climate protection summit in Seattle
organized by the United States Conference of Mayors. (A copy of the speech was provided to The New York Times by aides to the mayor; the full text is available here, along with the complete Times story.)

Needless to say, Charles Komanoff at the recently spiffed-up Carbon Tax Center, thinks this is a big deal (worthy of an Oscar or a Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps?):

With his speech today, Mayor Bloomberg joins former Vice-President Al
Gore as the nation’s leading advocates of a carbon tax to cap and
reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels.

And consistent with the Mayor’s local transportation policy push:

Bloomberg’s support of a U.S. carbon tax is philosophically consistent
with his big current local initiative, a congestion pricing plan to
improve mobility, economic activity and the quality of life in the
Manhattan Central Business District by charging an entry fee for motor
vehicles. A carbon tax and congestion pricing both embody the principle
that safeguarding “the commons” — our air, water and public space –
requires that we exact from ourselves a commensurate price for uses
that damage or deplete it.

Congestion pricing advocate Carolyn Konheim and consulting partner Brian Ketcham are advising the Bloomberg administration to drop its resistance to a congestion pricing Environmental Impact Study.

The two say a study is needed to head off "likely 11th hour litigation" aimed at stopping the three-year pilot program from taking effect, a possibility Streetsblog alluded to following the first meeting of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission late last month.

"[D]ecision-makers need to know that the selection of the system to be tested has considered all reasonable alternatives to achieve the Mayor's admirable goals," reads a press release announcing Konheim and Ketcham's open letter to Mayor Bloomberg.

The most promising alternative to be examined in an environmental assessment is "charging at the real chokepoints in roadway capacity -- our river crossings and highways," according to Ketcham, a traffic engineer who has regarded bridge tolls as the premier congestion pricing strategy since he introduced them in his landmark Clean Air plan for New York City in 1973. Tolling the four free East River bridges equal to all MTA crossings and across 60th Street, river to river, he calculates "would be at least as effective as PlaNYC in reducing congestion and would generate far more funding for transit."

The independent Brooklyn-based planners estimate that a pricing cordon that crosses bridge and tunnel spans and 60th Street would require E-ZPass monitors on about 50 inbound lanes, whereas the charging network necessitated by PlaNYC's complex avoidance of tolls could require detectors and cameras on1,000 to 2,000 lanes. Based on London's operating costs for a simpler single cordon, they foresee that the charging grid in PlaNYC would consume most of the congestion pricing revenue, leaving little funding for transit -- a major goal of the mayor's plan and the long-term aim of transit advocates.

Mr. Ketcham and Ms. Konheim suggest numerous strategies as alternatives to or companions of congestion pricing, particularly, the kind of comprehensive parking control and parking pricing program instituted in London before road pricing, and measures to reduce taxi cruising, a "major source of New York's congestion."

The full text of the letter appears after the jump.

Hon. Michael Bloomberg

Mayor

City Hall

New York, NY 10007

Re: Congestion Pricing Pilot Test Must Undergo Environmental Review

As long time advocates of congestion pricing in New York City, we fear that your entire plan could be in self-imposed jeopardy. Some of your PlaNYC team wrongly assert that compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act need not occur until after the three-year pilot test. It is a mistake to dismiss this clear legal mandate as a delaying tactic of opponents of congestion pricing. Their call for an EIS now is a sure signal that they will see you in court if you have not taken some defensible action to comply with SEQRA, described further in the enclosure. The SEQR process may be inconvenient and is certainly imperfect, but it is mandatory in New York State for all discretionary actions of government that have the potential for causing a significant impact -- as, indeed, is your intent. The virtue of your program's goals does not exempt compliance with the SEQR process. Nor does virtue protect your proposal from 11th hour litigation that could de-rail implementation on the grounds of failing to identify unintended consequences or not adequately evaluating alternatives that further PlaNYC goals.

Your team cannot argue both ways. On one hand, they are saying that the data already collected are adequate to meet the purpose of SEQRA, which is to enable government agencies to make informed decisions. At the same time, they are saying that any SEQR review requires collecting data during the 3-year pilot because the regional model is an imperfect tool for predicting local impacts. If so, they cannot then cite the model to assure communities outside the pricing zone that they would not be adversely affected by commuter parking or over-crowded trains.

Most of all, decision makers need to know that the selection of the system to be tested has considered all reasonable alternatives to achieve your admirable goals: reducing congestion and global warming emissions; generating funds to improve transit; maintaining the city's global economic leadership; and promoting community quality of life and air quality. Thus, the most promising cost-effective alternative must, by definition, be identified in advance of the pilot test.

It is also specious for your team to claim SEQR exemption on the grounds that the Action is reversible and is "not like having to tear down a building." Overhead gantries at hundreds of charging locations would, in fact, be major construction. Last week, the MTA reported that the half-billion dollar cost of transit services to support the pilot period would cause a major reordering of its adopted capital program. The 3-year test will extract well over a billion dollars from the region's motorists. A 3 year change of travel patterns will have long-term effects -- for good or ill -- on the business climate, people's lifestyles and investments across the region. In no way can it be argued that a full scale 3-year "trial" qualifies for the SEQR exemption allowed for feasibility, engineering and planning studies and other purely paper exercises.

Your compelling case for road pricing finally permits rational assessment of closing New York's free bridge loophole, especially in combination with a single charging cordon across Manhattan. Charging at the chokepoints in roadway capacity -- our river crossings and highways -- could be at least as effective as PlaNYC in reducing congestion and would generate far more funding for transit, a major goal. Based on London's costs for operating a ring of street charging monitors, it is evident that administering the more complex charging network in PlaNYC of monitors on 1,000-2000 lanes would consume most of the revenue, leaving little for transit. When your advisors seized on London's street cordon charging system as a way for New York to avoid the historical political stigma of bridge tolls, we think they had no idea of the power of the campaign you would mobilize. Nor did they gauge the latent anti-traffic fervor across the city that now seeks the local traffic relief of bridge tolls, the premier "congestion pricing" strategy in NYC for three decades.

Most promising, but rarely discussed, is the reduction of congestion far beyond the pricing zone that will likely result from reducing trips to the city center and eliminating the distortions of travel due to toll differentials. Our modeling in 2003 shows that tolling the four free East River bridges at the same rate as the MTA crossings would cut more than 9% of the time citywide that motorists, truckers and bus riders now waste stuck in traffic. Most of the travel time savings would be in Brooklyn and Queens where drivers would no longer clog routes to the free bridges. The ripple effect of faster travel would benefit motorists not even using the bridges -- and communities everywhere. Not only would this exceed your goal of 7% less congestion delay in Manhattan, but it could be accomplished virtually overnight with about 25 overhead E-ZPass scanners on the four free East River bridges. Adding another 28 charging points across 60th Street, river to river, would capture the other half of the traffic that now escapes tolls and it would achieve the political equity missing in past tolling proposals. Instituting London-style annual fees for residential parking permits and strict limits for parking in the pricing zone could provide an equitable revenue trade off for eliminating fees for Intra-zonal trips and the costly collection grid.

Our 1995 Four World Cities Study, a milestone comparison of transport in the global financial capitals, revealed strong similarities between London and New York. But important differences must be accounted for in predicting the effects of congestion pricing. In New York, the tolls at most entrances will be deducted from the new charge, lowering its differential impact. Manhattan highways fall far short of London's ring road bypasses with their capacity improvements that smoothed the absorption of traffic diverted from the congestion zone. New York lacks London's comprehensive parking pricing program that prevents long term parking almost everywhere. New York has none of London's initiatives to curtail taxi cruising and erratic maneuvers which are a major cause of congestion. And New York has not created the pervasive pedestrian streetscape, which London First Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron cites as the real objective of congestion pricing. When you are next in London, get the lowdown on reliance on high-tech charging systems from Deputy Mayor Gavron. Last May at NYU, she confided: If London had New York's bridges and tunnels, it would never have created a street cordon. Why would New York propose multiple cordons-London has enough trouble with one. You've got parking all wrong in New York. Parking pricing should come first or, at least, as a companion to road pricing

Your PlaNYC team cannot continue to validate their public assurances by referring to London without these caveats and without making the PlaNYC model completely transparent, reporting all its underlying data and assumptions. To maintain the momentum of your potential congestion breakthrough, the City should now be preparing at least an EAS to preempt 11th hour litigation. This necessitates gathering and openly analyzing the extensive baseline data, as preceded London's test program. A forthright SEQR/CEQR process will build confidence in the selected outcome by enabling public scrutiny of the analysis of alternatives and their consequences. A full accounting of the societal costs of vehicle travel would also show that the economic benefits of comprehensive congestion reduction are even greater than have been reported to you to date. With a vested interest in your success that goes back 30 years when we first introduced the pricing concept, we stand ready to help you and your team assess what works best for New York.

Sincerely yours,

Carolyn Konheim & Brian Ketcham, P.E.

cc: Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission; other interested parties

Photo: fabrisalvetti/Flickr

Mayor Bloomberg and the Campaign for New York's Future never really seemed to get that the congestion pricing debate was fundamentally going to be a fight about class, and the widening divide between rich and poor in New York City.

While the Mayor and the Campaign built their communications strategy around little girls with asthma and $500 million in federal funding for transit, opponents hammered away on class issues, arguing that congestion pricing is a "regressive tax," harmful to small business, the middle class and the aspiring middle class. Perhaps a Mayor Weiner or Carrion wouldn't have been as vulnerable to these clearly bogus class arguments. But the billionaire Republican mayor was.

The Mayor and the Campaign should have acknowledged up front that an $8 fee isn't going to prevent Donald Trump from driving in to Midtown if that's what he wants to do. But if CEO's and hedge fund managers are going to drive anyway, let's make them pay every time they decide to do so. And let's take their money and plow it into mass transit for the rest of us, the 95% of weekday commuters who don't use a car to get to work in Manhattan. Congestion pricing is transportation policy that Robin Hood would approve of.

It's probably too late for Bloomberg, but perhaps there are some lessons here for a Mayor Weiner or Carrion. The failure to address the class issue head-on allowed a congestion pricing opponent like Westchester Assembly Member Richard Brodsky to present himself as the defender of the little guy. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. Brodsky did no favors to New York City's poor and middle class. He did, however, do a fantastic job of representing the interests of his relatively wealthy, suburban, car-commuting district.

Take a look at the income data from these three State Assembly districts. It's pretty clear who represents the interests of poor and middle class New York City residents and who does not:

19.6% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
26.6% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
53.3% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Jose Rivera, congestion pricing supporter
D-Bronx
Assembly District 78

64.5% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
27.0% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
8.4% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Adriano Espaillat, congestion pricing supporter
D-Manhattan
Assembly District 72

63.1% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
28.1% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
8.7% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Numbers are based on 2000 census data assembled in 2002 by the New York State Legislative Taskforce on Demographic Research and Reapportionment.

Supporters of congestion pricing rallied yesterday in Times Square, urging state lawmakers to act by July 16 on Mayor Bloomberg's initiative or risk losing $500 million in federal funds. "The time is now," said the mayor, according to the New York Post. "We cannot walk away from this opportunity." 

Shouting out to tourists in a passing bus, the Mayor also suggested a new slogan for the Big Apple, according to the Daily News: "Welcome to New York. We have cars clogging our street. We have trucks polluting our air. We have traffic holding back business."

Following in the footsteps of Bruce Schaller and Jon Orcutt, Project for Public Spaces vice president and transportation program director Andy Wiley-Schwartz is heading over to 40 Worth Street where he will be reporting to Deputy Commissioner Schaller at DOT's new Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. There they will be working to implement the transportation and public space objectives set out in Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC.

Wiley-Schwartz starts at DOT on Monday. While there has been no official announcement of his hiring or his title, word has it Wiley-Schwartz will be working on new public space initiatives, which seems like a natural fit, given his experience at PPS. With DOT's recent focus on reclaiming under-utilized bits and pieces of street space as public plazas and with tremendous grassroots energy in places like Hell's Kitchen, SoHo, Gansevoort, Grand Army Plaza, Williamsburg and even the occasional, random on-street parking spot -- it seems like "public space initiatives" could be a pretty exciting job description at DOT right now.

Wiley-Schwartz has been a contributor here at Streetsblog. At PPS he specialized in working with Departments of Transportation and community groups all across the U.S. on downtown street enhancement, traffic calming and bicycle and pedestrian projects. He is a national lead in the Context Sensitive Solutions movement, an articulate advocate and just a really pleasant guy to work with. Here is an excerpt from his PPS bio:

He specializes in helping communities rebuild their neighborhoods and cities by leveraging transportation funding into the development of public spaces, including streets and other transportation facilities, in part by focusing on strategic partnerships and programming.

Andy's current projects include PPS's New Jersey Smart Choices program: an outreach, education and training program to help municipalities plan and make sustainable land use decisions in partnership with the New Jersey Department of Transportation. He is also working with the Times Square Alliance in New York City, the City of Elmira, NY to revitalize the area under and around a railroad viaduct downtown, and advising the City of Indianapolis on their plan to build a "Cultural Trail" through their central business district.

And, no, this is not an April Fool's prank. It's June, people.

It seems inconceivable given the overwhelmingly positive developments of the past few weeks, but the city wants to increase parking in Manhattan by some 20,000 spaces, and is defending itself in court for the right to do so.

The Bloomberg and Spitzer administrations are working together to hold on to a rezoning provision that would dramatically increase required parking inventory for new development in the Hudson Yards area on the far West Side. The parking plan is a holdover from the failed Jets stadium deal -- and it's illegal, according to the Hell's Kitchen Neighborhood Association (HKNA) and others who have filed suit against Mayor Bloomberg, City Planning Director Amanda Burden, the MTA and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

The suit alleges that the parking requirements, adopted in 2005, are in violation of a 1982 agreement to keep the city in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Further, plaintiffs question the validity of the city's environmental impact statement regarding planned development for the area.

For its part, the DEC is attempting to remove references to parking from its Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP). The state currently limits the amount of parking that can be attached to development below 60th Street, but the DEC says parking should not be considered part of the SIP since the city was not legally required to consider parking as part of its compliance strategy. Further, the DEC says parking falls under the jurisdiction of city planners, not state officials.

To justify itself and the city, the state is submitting reams of paperwork in an effort to prove carbon monoxide levels are declining. The HKNA and others reply that the air quality numbers are not specific to the far West Side and that they ignore ozone and particulates -- all of which would be increased substantially from car trips generated by 20,000-plus additional parking spots.

And it should go without saying that while the city is on one hand claiming it can withstand such an environmental blow, Mayor Bloomberg's campaign for congestion pricing -- and indeed, most of PlaNYC itself -- is based on the acknowledgment that the air New Yorkers breathe is dangerously polluted and carbon emissions must be curbed.

Nevertheless, the city is about to start soliciting bids for a massive underground parking deck, originally intended for car-driving Jets fans, that will house 950 cars and occupy six blocks.

The DEC held a hearing on its proposed SIP alteration last week, but officials didn't show up, due to what was later described to Streetsblog as an "administrative error." The hearing is supposed to be rescheduled for sometime in July, and the comment period will remain open at least until then, according to the DEC's Robert Bielawa.

The HKNA lawsuit, meanwhile, having been delayed by the city and state for two years, has recently entered the discovery phase.

Photo: midweekpost/Flickr 

The organizations and leaders who stepped up today to support the Mayor's plan and enlist in the broad-based Campaign for New York's Future included:

• New York City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Manhattan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Dumbo Improvement District
• National Supermarkets Association
• Chinese Chamber of Commerce New York
• New York Industrial Retention Network
• 86^th Street Bay Ridge Business Improvement District

Said Maria Alvarez Castro, President and CEO of the Manhattan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, "By and large, small business owners in New York City also live here. They want what is best for their families and the City's future and are willing to support sensible efforts to create a healthier environment to live and work."

Added Tucker Reed, Executive Director of the Dumbo Improvement District, "Change is not an option. It is an urgent priority. Global warming, traffic congestion and health problems, such as asthma and lung disease, are getting worse and will continue to worsen absent serious measures, such as the far-reaching PlaNYC initiative. It is time all of us got on board with solutions."

Joe Ithier of the New York City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce said, "In addition to the enormous health benefits of PlaNYC, it will be obvious to any small business owner, who studies the full details of the initiative, that the package of proposals, if enacted, would benefit virtually all business in virtually every industry throughout the five boroughs."

Said Adam Friedman, Executive Director of the New York Industrial Retention Network, "By encouraging environmentally-friendly construction and business operations, the Mayor's sustainability initiative opens the door to creation of entirely new industries such as energy efficient lighting, building materials made from recycled wood and plastic, and healthy paints and cleaning solutions. We see tremendous job creation potential in these emerging industries."

Said Nelson Eusebio of the National Supermarkets Association, "Throughout
the world, there is a growing urgency to efforts to combat climate
change and ensure that our children and our grandchildren inherit a
working planet. Mayor Bloomberg has recognized this growing threat and
is doing something about it. We in the business community hope his
counterparts in Albany develop that same sense of urgency."

Said Justin Yu of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce New York, "Some are pushing the mistaken notion that small businesses would be hurt by congestion pricing. Quite the opposite is true. Pricing is a good idea that we should try. It will certainly speed deliveries throughout the City, especially for those businesses impacted by crosstown traffic on Canal Street."

Said Patrick Condren of the 86^th Street Bay Ridge Business Improvement District, "Mass transit is the best and only option for travel for the majority of customers and retail workers, who are the backbone of small businesses throughout the City. The Mayor's PlaNYC initiative, therefore, is critical as it would fund necessary transit service improvements and expansions without overburdening these riders with massive fare hikes."

Said Aaron Grogan, whose parents founded Sweet Sam's Baking Company in the Bronx, "Businesses that must make deliveries in the metropolitan region or that rely on distributors to cater to their customers understand that congestion pricing is a very small price to pay for the immense benefits of a freer, more efficient and more predictable flow of goods."

Norman Hinsey, PE, Vice President of the CSA Group, a leading Hispanic MBE architectural and engineering firm, said, "Our firm strongly supports congestion pricing because it is in synch with the sustainable design we do for New York City public buildings."

According to a December report issued by the Partnership for New York City, the city's leading business organization, excess traffic congestion costs the New York metropolitan region more than $13 billion and up to 52,000 jobs every year - and the problem will only get worse. The Partnership forecasts a 20 percent increase in traffic over the next two decades absent change. Some of the industries hardest hit by excess congestion are manufacturing, trucking, service and repair, wholesale trade and construction.

Though members of my immediate family claim that it is the most mind-numbingly boring of all 500 cable channels available in our home, I'm a big fan of NYCTV Channel 74 (and don't get me started about Channel 93's riveting City Drive Live, traffic cam after traffic cam, get yourself a bucket of popcorn and settle in).

One of the best "shows" that I ever saw on Channel 74 was a 2005 City Council hearing on Council Member David Yassky's hybrid taxi legislation. The push for hybrid cabs has been a pillar of Yassky's platform since his first days in City Council. In 2003 he introduced 81 taxi medallions designated strictly for hybrid vehicles. In 2005 the city released another 250 of the hybrid medallions.

Putting cleaner and more fuel efficient taxi cabs on the streets of New York seemed to me to be a no-brainer and a big win for taxi drivers, taxi riders and the city as a whole. So, it was incredible to watch Taxi Commissioner Chairman Matthew Daus flanked by a couple of old school taxi industry guys on Channel 74, rejecting every one of Yassky's attempts to get the TLC to commit to more hybrid cabs. Back in 2005, this idea seemed to be an impossibility.

Times have changed. This morning Mayor Bloomberg and Yassky appeared together on the Today Show to announce the city's commitment to establishing an all-hybrid or low emission taxi fleet for New York City by 2012. City Council and the TLC haven't gotten their hands on it yet, so who knows what the final law will look like. But here are the general outlines of the new legislation as described to me by a Yassky aide:

• Current law mandates that cab owners must purchase new vehicles every three years. Between now and January 2008 somewhere around 2,700 new cabs will be put on the street. The new law suggests that the taxi industry voluntarily commit to making sure that 20%, or 540, of these new cabs are hybrids.
  
• By October 2008 all newly purchased yellow cabs will be vehicles with a 25 m.p.g. city rating or higher.
  
• October 2009 all newly purchased yellow cabs will be vehicles with a 30 m.p.g. city rating or higher or low emission standards. Including the three year turnover, by October 2012 all of New York City's 13,000 taxis would meet this standard.