Monday, December 15, 2008

Decongestion

Almost two years ago, the New York Times published an editorial so offensive, I canceled my subscription. An excerpt:

The report, called PlaNYC 2030, is intended to be an important guidepost for the city’s future. Done right, it could become a global model and an important piece of Mr. Bloomberg’s legacy.

To get there, though, the mayor will have to deal aggressively with a vexing problem, traffic congestion. If that piece of the plan falls short, the rest of Mr. Bloomberg’s vision won’t much matter. In just a couple of decades, New York is expected to add nearly a million more people. To have any hope of keeping people moving, the city will need to take real and substantial action to unclog its roads — including some form of congestion fee and other disincentives to driving on the busiest streets.


What the editorial, in its self-obsessed hysteria, is saying is that Plan NYC - which calls for more parks, schools, and healthcare accessibility - is meaningless. Only Manhattan traffic matters.

On Monday the city releases a new traffic study The NY Times got a sneak peak, it reports:

The difference is even greater when the focus is on the core commercial district of Manhattan, south of 60th Street. From 2003 to 2007, the study found, traffic entering that area fell by 3 percent. During the same period, transit ridership into the same zone rose 12 percent.

Surprised? You shouldn't be - I've been saying here since the beginning that traffic is not getting worse in Manhattan and the problem of traffic congestion should have been looked at citywide - something an environmental review would have certainly done. Hopefully the Times and the Mayor will calm down a bit on their irresponsible crusade to relocate traffic to outer borough transit hubs now that it looks like we're going in the right direction.