Hack Up A One For Congestion Pricing

The point of charging people who ride in a taxi an extra dollar is what exactly? To make it less desireable to ride in a cab? No, the point is to lower asthma rates:

Hailing a cab in the city’s proposed congestion zone could add a dollar to the fare if a state commission’s recommendation is sent to Albany and the City Council for approval.

The Congestion Mitigation Commission is set to recommend today four scenarios for the implementation of the mayor’s congestion pricing plan, which would charge drivers about $8 to enter and drive in most of Manhattan during peak hours.

One scenario would charge taxi passengers $1 for trips that originate below 60th Street.

No New Tree-Lined Boulevard!

Now that an ambitious expansion of the Javits Center is all but dead, maybe we should reconsider that subway stop:

Two years after the Far West Side was rezoned for large-scale development, a growing number of elected officials, environmentalists and community groups are questioning the city’s and state’s plans for the area.

The city has set aside $2.1 billion for the extension of the No. 7 line from Times Square to the Javits Convention Center and the West Side railyards, the rights to which the Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to auction off for high-rise residential and commercial development. But in an effort to stay within the budget, the city recently eliminated one of two stops along the 1.1-mile extension from the current tunneling contract.

Representative Jerrold Nadler; the city comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr.; and other officials said in a Dec. 19 letter to Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff that it was “imperative” that the city build that subway station, at 10th Avenue and 41st Street, as part of the extension, work on which began last month. Not doing so, they said, would “represent a failure to the area’s growing residential population” and “puts at risk several million square feet of potential commercial and residential development.”

Those officials suggested financing the station by diverting money from projects that could be put on hold temporarily, like building a tree-lined boulevard between 10 and 11th Avenues, from 34th to 39th Streets. Those projects are part of the city’s larger vision for rebuilding the Far West Side.

A tree-lined boulevard? Where did that come from?

A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery, Inside A Shell

How could a subway extension project with only one stop be cut back any further? It’s possible:

The MTA and the city are moving ahead with a planned extension of the No. 7 subway line to the Javits Convention Center, but much of the original project may be scrapped to stay on budget, officials said yesterday.

The agency is expected next week to approve a $1.1 billion contract to dig the extension from Times Square west to 11th Avenue, then downtown to a terminal at 34th Street.

Not only will plans for a stop at 41st Street and 11th Avenue be eliminated, but the MTA may not even build a planned shell for a future station.

. . .

Normally, the MTA wouldn’t spend $2.1 billion to add a single station, but the city is footing the bill as part of its development of the West Side rail yards.

There is an option to build the station shell for $500 million more, but the MTA would be responsible for overruns and doesn’t have the money. Transit advocates called the decision to possibly eliminate the station a grave error.

“The real irony is that there are many more homes and businesses near the 10th Avenue station than near the Javits station,” said MTA board member Andrew Albert. “The bottom line is this is going to cost us a lot more later.”

David Mamet Rolls In His Grave* Crying, “Oy, Where Are The Adults These Days?”

Broadway producers look for that lucrative tween market, which obviously has more cash than it knows what to do with:

For Broadway producers, 10-year-old Jamie Carroll looks like an ideal theatergoer: she downloads scores off of iTunes, is a fervent proselytizer when she likes something and has lots of friends, two of whom she brought along to a recent Saturday matinee of “Legally Blonde.” “A lot of my friends say it’s the best musical they’ve ever seen,” she said.

Maybe. But Jamie’s father and her 14-year-old brother would not join them, considering the show too girly. Even her mother, Tacey Carroll, was only present as a chaperon: “This is a little more for them,” she said, echoing several other mothers at the theater, one of whom even dropped off her young charges and went shopping.

And that’s the rub for Broadway producers, for whom teenage and tween girls have become the demographic of the moment, wooed by marketing campaigns and featured as central characters in a flurry of shows in development, including “13,” about a teenager from New York who is transplanted to Indiana; “Princesses,” which is basically “High School Musical” meets “Gossip Girl”; and a musical adaptation of the movie “Clueless.”

Increasingly, though, some worry that the sugar-and-spice enthusiasm may be misplaced, because while teenagers and tweens may be helpful in creating a hit, they are far from enough to ensure one. For that, you still need grown-ups — lots of paying grown-ups — to want to come to a show.

*Just kidding, Mr. Mamet! We can’t wait for that Duran Duran thing to end to see your next play staged!

There You Go Again

This is fancified lawyerspeak for what exactly? A cab driver’s right to unencumbered privacy? Who knows:

Officials with a taxi-driver advocacy group and the Taxi & Limousine Commission are slated to meet today with a federal judge after the drivers’ group filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday to keep global positioning technology out of the city’s 13,000 yellow cabs.

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which orchestrated a two-day strike earlier this month, and eight individual drivers filed the suit against the commission, saying the GPS technology is unconstitutional. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said the opposing parties were to meet in court Thursday at noon.

If no resolution is reached, cabbies may strike again, the alliance said.

. . .

Of the eight individual plaintiffs, six allege that they refused to sign a contract with one of four vendors of the GPS technology. They now face costly penalties and suspension of their medallions, according to the suit. The other two argue they would have to pay for the equipment even though one leases the cab, and the other owns his cab but not the medallion.

“We will fight any attempt by the TLC to encumber our client’s property without due process or which violates our client’s right to privacy under the guise of improving taxi service,” Richard Koehler, the alliance’s attorney, said in a statement.

Tom Robbins outlined some legitimate sounding reasons to oppose the GPS requirement — so how come we get platitudes about privacy rights? They should stick with the facts, assuming that what Robbins reported is correct:

After cab owners began installing the devices in their taxis this year, drivers noted other problems as well: The gadgets often didn’t work. Apparently, there were blackout areas in the city where the credit-card machinery failed to kick in. This resulted in the taxi meters instantly shutting down as well. In the taxi business, a nonworking meter is the equivalent of a “closed” sign hanging in a restaurant window.

. . .

One of the approved vendors, a startup New Jersey firm, has had no experience in taxis or anything else. Another is a Queens company that already services taxi meters and whose wireless credit-card units were panned when originally introduced. Another firm is co-owned by Ronald Sherman, the head of the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, the group that represents the powerful taxi-fleet owners. When the commission originally said it was going to make the equipment mandatory in all cabs, Sherman complained at a public hearing that it would be too expensive. Then he realized that wouldn’t be a problem if he started his own company to provide the units. This he promptly did. Amazingly, his was one of those the commission approved.

The commission’s experts never even examined the product of a British company, Cabvision, whose credit-card and wireless-communication units are already working in 1,000 London taxis. The British proposal was especially intriguing because it offered to provide and install the units for free, just as it does in London.

Unfortunately, the Cabvision proposal was rejected after it was deemed to have missed the deadline. Company owners protested that they’d been assured by taxi-commission officials that a one-day delay in transoceanic mail wouldn’t be a problem. Then it turned out that the agency’s chief contracting officer had opened and read the proposal, even though it is against all the rules to do so once a submission has been rejected for tardiness. Commission officials apologized for the slipup and promised to send the proposal back. When last heard from, the British firm was still waiting for the package.