New York prides itself on being the most progressive city in the nation (and maybe in the world), but Chicago is catching up.
After higher-ups in Albany rejected Mayor Bloomberg’s plan for congestion pricing in New York (which would have granted NYC $354.5 million in federal funding), Chicago didn’t waste any time snapping up the opportunity. The windy city has accepted $153 million from The Department of Transportation to fund its new plan to combat congestion.
The city plans to introduce a Bus Rapid Transit network and a variable rate parking meter system in Chicago’s downtown.
From the New York Times:
The bus system will have dedicated lanes and use technologically advanced buses which will have priority at busy intersections so that green lights can be extended for buses that are really late. The new parking meters will charger higher rates during the morning and evening rush periods so commuters will be encouraged to take mass transit instead of driving.
Mary E. Peters, the federal transportation secretary called Chicago’s plan “ambitious, bold and innovative – just like the city itself.” To progressive New Yorkers, the words sting.
Sources: The NYT and the Chicago Tribune.
Photos via flickr by mcmrbt.
Related posts:
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I think that stopping global warming would be great, but what’s really necessary is to move to being a sustainable culture.
I’m afraid this is the truth most of us don’t want to know. Though personally I’m convinced Zero Emissions is what we are to try to achieve, I’m very much afraid the grand majority of people won’t take this goal seriously.
I guess that’s one important reason for many politicians to set goals for something like 20 percent decrease, in stead of telling what goals should really be achieved.
In order to get us closer to the desired zero-emissions I think a system of gradually increasing RATIONING of carbon emissions for each and every person and company will be the only way.
Though a rationing scheme might feel like ‘taking away our freedom’, it might be the only way to sustain our ‘freedom’ for many more decades or centuries, in stead of wasting it in something like two or three decades.