Group to promote the revised Plan for tolls on the East River bridges

There could be no more talk, motivated in the service of public transit, "prices of congestion", a phrase Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg often used before its plan for sweeping overhaul the bridge from the city of New York toll system was defeated in 2008 and considered to be political arsenic since.

Then, with a clean slate, supporters could get to the hard part: carve a proposal that could succeed where the Mayor has failed.

And so, more than five years after the plan of Mr. Bloomberg, died in Albany, a frame of mind of the City Transit began a successor, development of a pricing model that might be more acceptable to residents outside Manhattan, meeting quietly with former opponents and preparing to take his case earlier this year next to a public who took the regular releaseIf traffic choked, rides on the East River.

Political obstacles abound, including securing the support of the State legislature. But in what the supporters of the regime were presented as the most important change of attitude so far, Councilman Mark Weprin, a virulent critic of the earlier proposal, said in an interview last week that he was receptive to this reinvented version.

"I wish I had a chance to talk to them again," he said of his voters "and say that it is much more logical." (Mr. Weprin, a Queens Democrat, is running for the President of the municipal Council).

Promoters said the arrangement, designed by Samuel I. Schwartz, a former City traffic Commissioner, would increase tolls in congested high and wide, transit areas and reduce or eliminate them in the pockets of the poor in transit, suggesting that Manhattan would be called upon to contribute more than what they had under previous proposals.

The plan championed by Mr. Bloomberg would have "raised revenue to do a lot of good things," Mr. Schwartz said. "To be honest this fundamental premise. ''

Move NY, the group behind the campaign, announced the new plan as "just toll and transport reinvestment," adding that its details would not final until after a series of public forums next year. It is distinguished from the vision of Mr. Bloomberg, the group said, in part because its revenues would be used not only to finance the Metropolitan Transportation Authority capital program, but also to upgrade roads and bridges - a blink of eye to drivers who could oppose any oriented congestion pricing.

While the amounts of the fees could change, an example on the site Web of Mr. Schwartz included $5.33 E-ZPass tolls on the bridge Queensboro Ed Koch and the Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges - who are now free. The rate of one-way to cross the Verrazano-Narrows bridge would decrease to $5.66, $ 10.66 and tolls on Kennedy, Throgs Neck and Bronx-Whitestone bridges would be $2.83.

Traffic should be relieved, Mr. Schwartz said, because the adjusted rates would discourage 'toll-shopping,' which can currently drive commercial vehicles and drivers private take winding but inexpensive routes through some of the neighborhoods most busy city.

Rates could also be adjusted according to economic fortune of the city, Mr. Schwartz said, potentially fall during lean periods.

Move NY has estimated that the plan would create 35,000 jobs.

Some legislators from the city and the State remain deeply skeptical to adjust the fee structure. Elected Mayor Blasio Bill, while he was on the Council, voted against the plan of Mr. Bloomberg in 2008. He said during a Democratic primary debate this year that it is opposed to toll the East River bridges.

He had been informed of the new proposal, but she refused to comment further, said a spokesman for Mr. de Blasio.

Then it is Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, which drew the ire of advocates of transport earlier this month after veto legislation intended to discourage Albany to redirect transit funds dedicated. His office did not respond to the requests for comments on the proposal.

Although the transport authority has recently announced that it would increase the rates and tolls of 2017 and less expected in 2015, citing an improvement in the financial situation, securing the sources of income in the long term remains a challenge.

Elliot G. Sander, President of the regional Association of Plan and a former director general of the authority of transport, said Mr. Schwartz plan presented the best option to fund the Agency for 2015-2019 capital program.

"If people oppose this," he said, "there's obligation for them to come with their alternative for the way we finance the subways of the region, the rail network and commuter bus."

Adam Lisberg, the chief spokesman for the transportation authority, said the Agency was "always happy to speak with anyone with ideas on how to finance the A.M.T capital plan", but added that costs of rehabilitation policy was up to the legislature and other political leaders.

Among former critics of ideas to the toll bridges of the East River, reactions are mixed. Richard L. Brodsky, a former advisor to democratic and senior fellow at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University, said Mr. Schwartz plan was "basically, a regressive tax" even if the equity issues between the boroughs "addressed to a certain extent," at least compared to the 2008 plan.

"It will change the behavior of the man flying the 97 Chevy," Mr. Brodsky has said, "but will do nothing to change the behavior of the man flying the 2013 Mercedes."

Rory Lancman of i., a former Queens adviser who recently won the elections to the Council, called the proposed change of toll "a windmill special that transit advocates will not stop wind. ''

"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's price congestion," he said.

But another former opponent, John Corlett, the Chairman of the legislative Committee for AAA New York, said that the Group has found more to admire in Mr. Schwartz's proposal. "This plan has final benefits for drivers: costs of reductions in the outer boroughs and improvement of roads that go beyond good condition," he said.

Mr. Schwartz suggested that these measures should release its plan to the shadow of Mr. Bloomberg.

"In no case is this price congestion," said. "This is more than a blueprint for New York which has some elements of this.

Wheels: Insurance Group Says Toyota Crams for a Test, but the RAV4 Still Fails

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety The insurance organization says the dummy’s position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel and instrument panel after the crash test of the Toyota RAV4 indicates that the driver’s survival space was not maintained well.

When the results of the new small overlap crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety on 13 compact crossovers and S.U.V.’s were released in May, the group said the new 2013 Toyota RAV4 was missing from the tests because the automaker wanted time to make improvements.

So, according to the insurance group, Toyota made its changes, but in June when the new test was finally conducted, the RAV4 still failed. It got the lowest rating, Poor, in the overlap test.

Toyota had made changes to models built after April to better control the stability of the steering column and to provide extra padding under the footwell carpeting, according to a statement from the insurance group, which is funded by the insurance industry. RAV4s before that date do not have these improvements.

Still, those changes did not do enough to address a combination of poor structure and inadequate control of the test dummy’s movement, resulting in the Poor rating in the overlap test, the group’s newest, most severe frontal crash test.

In the RAV4, the dummy’s left foot “was trapped by crushed and buckled sheet metal in the footwell,” which indicated there was a high risk of injuries to the left lower leg in a crash this severe.
The dummy’s head hit the instrument panel. According to the test details, “the dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal air bag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved” more than 7 inches to the right, resulting in little air bag cushioning for the chest.

Additionally, the safety belt allowed “excessive” forward movement of the dummy’s head and torso, which contributed to the dummy hitting the instrument panel.

“There is just no good reason that the head should be allowed to get so far forward,” said David Zuby, the group’s chief research officer.

Nonetheless, the group said the RAV4’s overall performance was good.

“The overall safety of the RAV4 is quite high,” as indicated by a Good rating in the institute’s other crash tests and its designation as a Top Safety Pick, Mr. Zuby said. “But we are trying to push crashworthiness even further than what’s represented by today’s Top Safety Pick. And with regard to the small overlap crash test, the RAV4 falls short.”

Toyota refused to confirm that it asked the insurance group to hold off on the small overlap crash test while it made improvements to the RAV4 or to answer questions about what changes it made and why they were unsuccessful.

In an e-mail statement, the company said, “The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (I.I.H.S.) periodically develops new, more severe or specialized tests that go beyond federal requirements. With the small overlap test, the institute has raised the bar again, and we are responding to the challenge. We are looking at a range of solutions to achieve greater crash performance in this area. Although the Toyota RAV4 did not achieve the I.I.H.S. “Top Safety Pick +” (Plus) rating, it remains an I.I.H.S. Top Safety Pick.”

A vehicle can be a Top Safety Pick if it gets a Good rating in the group’s four other crash tests, regardless of how it performs in the small overlap test. To receive the highest distinction of a Top Safety Pick+, the vehicle must receive Good ratings in at least four of the group’s tests and no less than an Acceptable in the fifth.

“The message to consumers is, if you want the very safest vehicles look for a Top Safety Pick+,” Mr. Zuby said. “But you don’t have to really worry if you are driving around in a Top Safety Pick because those vehicles have a very high level of safety. The message to Toyota is, if you want to remain on the I.I.H.S. list of safest cars, you have work to do on the small overlap crash test.”

Mr. Zuby said that despite advances in crash safety, people are still dying and being seriously injured in frontal crashes. And small overlap crashes account for about 25 percent of those fatalities and injuries.

The RAV4 was not the only small crossover to have difficulty with the new test. In May, when the insurance group released the small overlap test results for the other small crossovers, only the Subaru Forester received a rating of Good. The Mitsubishi Outlander Sport earned an Acceptable rating. Six others were rated Marginal, and five were rated Poor.

The small overlap test was designed to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or a utility pole. In the test, 25 percent of a vehicle’s front on the driver’s side strikes a 5-foot-tall rigid barrier at 40 miles per hour. Because the edge of the vehicle hits the barrier, it misses the main crush-zone structures in the middle of the vehicle that reduce crash forces on the occupant compartment.

In these impacts, the left front wheel and tire can be forced back into the footwell, resulting in serious, debilitating leg and foot injuries, the group says. Vehicles also tend to rotate and slide sideways. This movement can fling the dummy to the left toward the windshield and front-door pillar. And it can push the steering wheel, which contains the air bag, so far to the right that the air bag offers little protection to the dummy.

Some Toyota and Lexus models had similar problems with structure and restraints in earlier rounds of small overlap tests. The Lexus ES 350 and IS 350/250, and the Toyota Camry and Prius V wagon all received overall ratings of Poor in that test.

Wheels Blog: Consumer Advocacy Group Calls for a Recall of 5 Million Jeep Grand Cherokees

Chrysler The Center for Auto Safety wants Chrysler to recall five million Jeep Grand Cherokees made from 1993 to 2004 for a potential fire hazard from their gas tanks.

The Center for Auto Safety is asking top officials at the Chrysler Group and its parent company, Fiat, to recall about five million vehicles. The nonprofit consumer advocacy group said, “Children are dying in Jeeps in rear-impact fires.”

In a letter to John Elkann on Wednesday, Fiat’s chairman, the center cited the deaths of three children since 2006 in fires that occurred when the Jeeps in which they were riding were struck from the rear.

The Center for Auto Safety has also been urging, since 2009, a recall of 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees, saying the vehicles have two problems. The first is a gas tank behind the rear axle and somewhat below the bumper, in an area that safety engineers call a crush zone. Chrysler moved the tank in front of the rear axle when it redesigned the vehicle for the 2005 model year, but a company spokesman said the move was not related to concern about fires.

The second problem is a fuel filler pipe positioned so that it can rip away from the tank in a rear impact, allowing gasoline to escape from the tank, the center said. Chrysler has repeatedly denied that the Grand Cherokee posed a fire risk, noting that the vehicles met federal safety standards.

On Wednesday, the automaker issued a statement reconfirming its own analysis of the Grand Cherokee models called into question by the center, saying the S.U.V.’s “are neither defective, nor do their fuel systems pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety in rear impact collisions.” However, almost a year ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said its investigation of the center’s allegations were reason enough for the agency to upgrade its investigation to an engineering analysis.

In what appeared to be a direct rebuttal of Chrysler’s continuing claims, the traffic safety administration said its study found that “rear-impact-related tank failures and vehicle fires are more prevalent in the J.G.C. (Jeep Grand Cherokee) than in non-Jeep peer vehicles.” At that time the safety agency said it was expanding the investigation to include 1993-2001 Jeep Cherokees, as well as 2002-7 Jeep Libertys.

In 2011 the center released the results of crash tests it commissioned, showing that other S.U.V.’s of the same vintage fared far better in rear-impact crashes than did the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The center says it has reports of 157 deaths in which Grand Cherokee crashes resulted in a fire. That tally includes rear impacts as well as rollovers in which the filler hose might have ripped loose, Clarence Ditlow, the center’s executive director, said in an interview. The safety agency listed 15 fire deaths, but Mr. Ditlow said it was strictly looking at rear-impact crashes.

One of the child deaths mentioned in the center’s letter was that of Cassidy Jarmon, a 4-year-old who was riding in her family’s 1993 Grand Cherokee in February 2006 in Cleburne, Tex. Her mother was stopped on a two-lane highway, trying to make a left turn, when her Jeep was hit from behind by a 2001 Chevrolet Lumina, according to the police report. Cassidy, who was in a child restraint, survived the impact but couldn’t be easily freed from the seat because the fire happened so quickly, said Detective Kelly Summey, who arrived at the crash while the rescue was under way. She died two days later from burns and smoke inhalation.

Detective Summey said her investigation concluded that the gas tank had been punctured by the Jeep’s trailer hitch. The deaths of the two other children occurred in 2011 and 2012. The safety agency’s investigation is still under way.