• user warning: Can't open file: 'drupal52_node_comment_statistics.MYI' (errno: 145) query: SELECT last_comment_timestamp, last_comment_name, comment_count FROM drupal52_node_comment_statistics WHERE nid = 129 in /nfs/c01/h02/mnt/12544/domains/futureofny.org/html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172.
  • user warning: Can't open file: 'drupal52_node_comment_statistics.MYI' (errno: 145) query: SELECT comment_count FROM drupal52_node_comment_statistics WHERE nid = 129 in /nfs/c01/h02/mnt/12544/domains/futureofny.org/html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172.
  • user warning: Can't open file: 'drupal52_node_comment_statistics.MYI' (errno: 145) query: SELECT node.nid, comments.timestamp AS comments_timestamp_timestamp, comments.subject AS comments_subject, comments.cid AS comments_cid, comments.name AS comments_name, comments.uid AS comments_uid, comments.timestamp AS comments_timestamp FROM drupal52_node node LEFT JOIN drupal52_node_comment_statistics node_comment_statistics ON node.nid = node_comment_statistics.nid LEFT JOIN drupal52_comments comments ON node.nid = comments.nid WHERE (node.type IN ('splash_survey')) AND (node_comment_statistics.comment_count >= '1') AND (comments.status = '0') ORDER BY comments_timestamp_timestamp DESC LIMIT 0, 5 in /nfs/c01/h02/mnt/12544/domains/futureofny.org/html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172.
  • user warning: Can't open file: 'drupal52_node_comment_statistics.MYI' (errno: 145) query: SELECT node.nid, comments.timestamp AS comments_timestamp_timestamp, comments.subject AS comments_subject, comments.cid AS comments_cid, comments.name AS comments_name, comments.uid AS comments_uid, comments.timestamp AS comments_timestamp FROM drupal52_node node LEFT JOIN drupal52_node_comment_statistics node_comment_statistics ON node.nid = node_comment_statistics.nid LEFT JOIN drupal52_comments comments ON node.nid = comments.nid WHERE (node.type IN ('homepage_blog')) AND (node_comment_statistics.comment_count >= '1') AND (comments.status = '0') ORDER BY comments_timestamp_timestamp DESC LIMIT 0, 5 in /nfs/c01/h02/mnt/12544/domains/futureofny.org/html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 172.

government

Report Suggests Congestion-Charging Would Mostly Affect Bridge and Tunnel Drivers

Friday, December 14, 2007, 01:26pm
Submitted by Jonathan Sills

An article in Tuesday's New York Times covering a new report from the city's Independent Budget Office suggests that most of the drivers who would be affected by the Mayor's controversial congestion-pricing proposal would be from outside the city, and have substantially higher incomes than in-city drivers. However, the report also suggests that while the plan would raise revenues from car-driving non-city residents it would potentially penalize city government workers who drive to work.

Government workers, according to the report, constitute nearly 20% of drivers, with police, fire and other emergency service drivers constituting nearly another fifth of the non-city residents potentially affected by the plan. This, says the Times article's author, Sewell Chan, does not bode well for the success of the proposal. Now, this blog, can see why emergency services should be exempt from a congestion-charge but why should general government office workers get special dispensation? They already get subsidized or free parking which promotes car use, should they also be exempt from a charge designed to cut pollution and congestion for all New Yorkers? Aren't they supposed to be working for the benefit of the city and its residents?

Moreover, if such "key workers" (fire, police, ambulance, teachers, doctors, nurses, government officials etc) are so important to the city, and need to have access to their offices quickly, would it not make sense for the city government to institute some kind of key worker assistance program that offered them some sort of housing subsidy? This is done in London and many cities in the UK where swift access to places of work for such people has been identified as a priority, and key workers have their accommodation subsidized to enable them to purchase homes close to their place of work.

After all, if you exclude whole classes of people from the congestion-charge aren't you failing to reduce congestion as much as has been judged to be optimal? And, if those excluded drivers are still sitting in traffic, where is the improvement? Isn't the whole point of the congestion-charge proposal to make New York City more livable, more efficient and less polluted, instead of inconvenient for certain people, depending on their employer? read more...