New York Goes Green

[babylonsister]

Kudos to Bloomberg; nice start!

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/new_york_goes_green/

New York Goes Green


Posted on Apr 22, 2007

Just in time for Earth day, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is set to announce 127 environmental proposals, including a plan to add one million new trees to the city over the next ten years. With an EPA you have to sue to see enforcement, it’s no wonder local leaders of all political stripes have increasingly taken on environmental regulation themselves.

AP via Yahoo!:

The tree program is one of 127 environmental proposals that Mayor Michael Bloomberg was set to outline Sunday in a speech at the Museum of Natural History, timed with the observance of Earth Day.

His administration has been working for more than a year on the package of ideas, which is also expected to include a controversial plan to charge motorists extra for driving into certain parts of Manhattan, as a way to cut down on traffic congestion and pollution.

Bloomberg, whose second term expires at the end of 2009, has a goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 30 percent over the next two decades. He has said that the population is likely to grow by another million in that time—up from 8.2 million today—and that the city needs a plan now to deal with the strain on infrastructure and the environment.

Read more

[MadHound]

1. Anything in there about use renewable energy?

The small city closest to me passed a referendum a couple of years ago mandating that the city get an increasing amount of its electric power from renewable, green sources. Out here in the Midwest that means wind power, and this program is a great success. Within ten years, the city is looking at increasing to fifty percent, and possibly within twenty making it one hundred percent, thus closing down the coal burning plant in town.

I'm hoping that more urban areas follow this model.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. Bloomberg also wants to set up congestion zones ala London. This would mean charging

drivers for bringing their vehicles into areas of Manhattan that are high traffic zones. Unfortunately, this just hurts the drivers that can't afford to do that. I don't think this will pass the council.

[aquart]

3. Yah. Clearing the streets for the limousines is a disgusting proposal.

Especially from the man who wanted to force the Olympics on us. He didn't mind jamming us like sardines in the subways, he just doesn't want to be stuck in traffic himself.

I like him as Mayor, I do. But sometimes the rich man surfaces and he does incredibly thoughtless things. When he extended metered parking to Sundays, for instance. That had to be repealed.

When he can figure out a way to reduce traffic that still lets my fixed-income Mom drive in and visit me without costing a fortune, we'll talk.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. I'm from the city originally (mostly Queens) but lived in Manhattan for 4 years. Having

my car there allowed me the ability to escape when I wanted to. If that regulation was in effect back then, my parents would have been cost prohibited to visit me too.

I live in Westchester now, and there are several times a year that I have to go into the city for my business. I can't use Metro North because I can't carry all of the merchandise I buy. It's not a high income biz and every dollar I can save helps. Parking at $11/hour is high enough as it is.

Let's hope that the council votes this down.

[deadmessengers]

5. Nice strawman

"Clearing the streets for limousines". HAHAHAHA.

It's clearing the streets for people who don't consider themselves too good to use America's best public transit system.

And, I've said this to you in a previous thread - if you can afford to live in Manhattan (especially below 86th street), you are MORE than wealthy enough to spring for the 8 bucks for your mom to come visit you.

[deadmessengers]

6. People should pay for the privilege of driving in congested areas

It's that simple. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. In Lower Manhattan, which is probably better served by public transit than any other area of the US, if not the world, it's inexusable to have private, single-passenger automobiles getting a free ride. They need to contribute to the upkeep of the infrastructure they're using.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. I understand that, but what happens is that lower and middle class people will be affected. This

allows the wealthy to go ahead and do what they wish. It is inequitable. Period.

[deadmessengers]

8. They're not the ones driving

Lower class people in NYC won't be affected at all, simply because an incredibly small number of lower-class people there have cars. They use the bus or the train, because gas and insurance is so ridiculously expensive in NYC as to preclude car ownership. Now, the middle class would be adversely affected, but my point here is that this is someplace where they SHOULD be affected, because they have a CHOICE. They can choose to take their private automobile and pay a congestion charge, or they can choose to take public transit. It's not a mandatory tax, it's a voluntary fee. New York City is one of the very few places in the US where something like this COULD be considered equitable, because of it's world-class public transit infrastructure.

I grew up in a lower-middle-class area of the Bronx, and I grew up with LOTS of people who preferred to drive into Manhattan. You know what the most common reason was that I always heard for why those people drove instead of taking the train? They didn't like getting hit up for change by homeless people. That was their reason. They were so intimidated, so completely freaked out even, by the idea of having to associate in some small way with the poorest of the poor, that they chose to drive instead. Those people are disgusting elitist snobs, and they need to pay out the freaking NOSE for their snobbery.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. I grew up in Queens and lived in Manhattan and I never knew anyone that drove

into the city, say they did so to avoid the homeless. I, on many occasions paid to have my windshields "cleaned". Also, living in an area of Queens that required taking buses to trains, older people like my parents found it difficult to use mass transit to go into the city.

I also knew many people who lived in rent stabilized buildings for Years in Manhattan (lower rents), who were teachers, secretaries, etc. who did keep their cars in the city. I never did, nor did I recall anyone I knew doing it to use the car to get around the city. Not everyone who lives in Manhattan has tons of money. While getting around Manhattan I walked or took mass transit. The car was there to get out of the city to visit my parents, my husband's parents, and visit other in-laws. I also used it to take weekend get aways.

So once again, no matter how you say it, no matter how bitter you are, the "other" elitists, with their Limos and Land Rovers and Beamers will not be affected at all. I find that exceptionally unfair.

[deadmessengers]

10. Buses to trains

I lived in an area of the Bronx that required taking a bus to get to a train as well. Still, somehow, most people (even older people) found the energy to do it.

As far as residents of Manhattan are concerned: When I lived in NYC (from 71-95) I distinctly remember that Manhattan residents got a special deal on parking. If I remember correctly, they got a BIG break on the excise taxes everyone else had to pay to park in a commercial lot. I think it was like 24% for non-Manhattanites, but only the regular 8.25% sales tax for those who lived there. So, their sweetheart deal is going away (if hasn't already - it's been a while), and you're not going to get any tears from me.

Also, if you're worried about older people and people living in subsidized housing, let's talk about that. Let's talk about the fact that the crosstown buses are damn near unusable because of traffic congestion caused by autos coming in from off the island, forcing older people who can't walk long distances to wait, and wait, and wait. Let's talk about the pollution that all those extra cars are causing, which makes it harder for them to breathe and drives up the medical costs of the people living there. And let's DEFINITELY talk about the people who contribute to this huge problem in the name of their profit-generating enterprises, but can't stand the idea of chipping in a measly eight bucks to help fix the problem to which they are contributing.

And no, the limos, Land Rovers, and Beemers won't be as affected as the elitist snobs I grew up with (and apparently you didn't), but the coffers of the city will benefit from their voluntary user fees they will have to contribute.

By the way - this plan is working out GREAT in London. According to a BBC report: Traffic has been cut by 18% and delays were down 30%. Can you imagine the quality of life increase that would represent for the people who choose not to drive in Manhattan?