David Weprin: Against Congestion Charging Because It Hurts The Outer Boroughs; Most Pols Afraid To Take Opinion On Matter

From NY Times ("Bigger Push for Charging Drivers Who Use the Busiest Streets" by William Neuman, November 24, 2006):

One of the most outspoken opponents of congestion pricing in New York has been David I. Weprin, a City Council member who represents some neighborhoods in eastern Queens that are far from subway lines and where residents with jobs in Manhattan are more likely to drive to work.

He said congestion pricing amounted to an unfair tax on residents in those areas, many of whom can ill afford it.

“The potential for causing hardship to people who rely on their cars in boroughs other than Manhattan is too great to try to implement congestion pricing at this point,” Mr. Weprin said.

In response, advocates said revenue from a congestion pricing program should be reserved for public transportation improvements that would help the outer boroughs. For instance, if new or faster bus routes could bring residents into Manhattan or to subway stations more efficiently, they may be more willing to forgo driving. That would also help answer critics who have said congestion pricing is nothing more than a new tax that would go straight into the city’s general budget.

Most of all, the advocates of congestion pricing have their eyes on the long-term strategic plan for the city being prepared by Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff. The plan is a response to predictions that the city will add one million residents by 2025, and figuring out how to keep people and vehicles moving around an ever more crowded city will be an important part of it. The activists hope that it will include a recommendation for some form of congestion pricing.

Mr. Doctoroff refused to talk about what the plan would include, but he said he was aware that traffic is a concern.

“It’s clear the level of congestion is an inhibitor to growth,” Mr. Doctoroff said. “We believe that smart growth is good, and therefore we need to provide additional capacity on every mode of transportation.” That, he said, includes city streets, and he added, “How we do that, that’s what we’re thinking through now.”

I can't say I know what the scope should be, or how high the charges, but it seems to me that congestion charging makes sense. If billions of dollars per year is being lost in traffic jams due to unncessarily burned fuel and wasted labor time, why not?

But it's hard not to be sensitive to Weprin's objection. Considering the vast majority of the city doesn't live in Manhattan, it really is high time to consider that the outer boroughs of New York City could really use improved subway service. If you live in Brooklyn and work in The Bronx, you probbaly have to drive. If you live in Queens, you probably have to drive unless you're lucky enough to live near a subway line. And if you live or work in Staten Island, you have to often drive no matter what.

Wasteful Underage Drinking Summit

With all the talk in recent months of alcohol causing so many problems in New York City (see my post "Attacking the Nightlife Industry"), a (snicker) sobering trend has begun Upstate.

Apparently, Central New York, an ill-defined region of what is probably the state with the loosest cultural identify in the entire United States, is having major problems with underage drinking. News 10 has the grim details ("Underage Drinking Summit," October 27, 2006, Cait McVey):

Underage drinking is a reality for most teenagers today, and the consequences can be serious. Recently, there have been several teen fatalities due to drunk driving in the Central New York area. In an effort to curb the problem, the group Prevention Network is holding an Underage Drinking Summit. Thursday's presentation was for teens and their parents.

So what the solution to this quagmire? Talk to your kids? Well, sort of. Teach your kids how to drink responsibly? No!

Actually, there was an ever-so-small snippet of wisdom at the bottom of this article:

Although the teenage years are known as a time when kids tune their parents out, teens we spoke with said they are listening, and they appreciate mom and dad's involvement.

"You act like you're ignoring them, but you're subconsciously listening," Chittenago High School student Rachael Gerow said.

Wait, that wasn't it. But that did lead into it:

"They always say if there's a need or a ride that's needed or I need a ride home somehow to give them a call. They're always supportive," said Chittenago High School student Scott Rutledge.

(I find it very amusing that the article was covering up the implication that this high schooler's parents told him if he had a drink he should call them so they could pick him up.)

That's right. If you have kids who are old enough to drink (and by old enough, I don't mean legally old enough—I mean they're probably old enough to be curious enough to sneak a bottle out of your liquor cabinet when you're not looking), it is your responsibility to see to it that they do it safely. So, if they entertain their curiosity, they shouldn't have to be afraid to call you if they need help. Calling somebody when you've had too much to drink is a sign of responsibility.

As a side note, it's very interesting that journalistic impartiality flies out the window when alcohol is being discussed:

During his presentation, Creagh also told parents that driving isn't the only danger teens face when drinking. He said alcohol can be a factor in many acts of sexual assault and violence...yet another reason to tell your teen to stay sober.

Yet another reason? How many reasons are there? The general rationale seems to be that we intoxication is immoral, and that drinking leads to intoxication. Meanwhile, young people should be protected from immorality. Therefore, young people should be protected from drinking. Of course, this ignores the reality that many young people are surrounded by images, and even witness first-hand, people drinking and enjoying themselves—with no ill consequences. I know I've had plenty of drinks in my time—probably too many sometimes—and have never once even considered committing a sexual assault or any other violent act. And I've met many other drinkers for whom I could safely say the same.

Many authority figures in this state and country seem to overlook the absurdity of saying to somebody who is by most measures legally recognized as an adult—and many high school seniors fit into this category—that you should do as I say, not as I do. If you're 18 and in high school, you likely have an older brother or sister who is 21 and legally allowed to drink in public. As a matter of fact, you very likely spend a lot of time with that person.

The good news for residents of New York State is that parents actually at least have some say in how their children consume alcohol. There's still enough liberty in the matter to let a parent allow a child to drink at home. I hope they take advantage of the opportunity to teach them to drink responsibly, so they don't learn in their dorm rooms or leaning over a frat house toilet.