I do not understand why some people say we should not invest more in the transit system with congestion pricing. If you have ever been to Washington, D.C., you have seen how nice subways can be - quiet, clean, not so crowded, even at rush hour.
Compare that with New York. I ride the No. 7 every day, and it can be an unpleasant experience. Too often, the trains are running late and you have to wait for the second or third train before you can squeeze in. Most of the time, the trains are so crowded during the morning that you practically have your nose in everyone else’s face.
The MTA has to buy more subway cars and put them on lines where there is overcrowding now. Then the MTA needs to upgrade the signaling system to allow trains to run closer together.
These solutions are not complicated but they will cost money, and that brings us back to congestion pricing. Right now, the MTA does not have the money to fix these problems. Rather than hitting the little guy up for fare hikes, I think they should charge the people who drive into Manhattan. They can afford cars, the insurance and parking, unlike the working-class and middle-class people who have to take the buses and trains.ck up the tab - for a change.
Dan Hendrick
Sunnyside
Drivers license plan fan
I would like to applaud Governor Eliot Spitzer for making it possible for undocumented immigrants to obtain driver licenses. It is a reality that these people do exist and need licenses so they may better support their families.
Until the federal government passes legislation to deal with the problem, we need to show compassion. There are approximately 500,000 to 1 million undocumented immigrants here in New York now.
With this new policy, the state should garner additional millions in licensing and vehicle registration fees and we will save millions a year in lower insurance premiums because fewer unlicensed motorists will be on the road and they will also have their own insurance.
Spitzer said it correctly, “We will not pretend that they do not exist, we will not cut them off from participating in our society, and we will not become part of the myth that is propagated at the federal level that they are not here.” Well for that, I say bravo.
Frederick R. Bedell Jr.
Bellerose
Teacher merit pay unfair
The idea to give teachers whose students do very well on standardized tests merit pay is really not very fair.
I am a Title 1 Nonpublic school reading specialist with the city Department of Education, starting my ninth year in the program. It is an excellent program. We are very much involved with the No Child Left Behind Act, since we are working with students whose achievement levels are below the guidelines for reading, math, and English as a Second Language (ESL).
All of the teaching staff in our program work very hard to help our students achieve their very best. Each spring, the math, reading, and ESL programs test all of the students enrolled in the Title 1 programs to assess their progress from September to May. Some students may do well, testing out for the following year, while others may not. In those cases, those students will be re-eligible to be in the Title 1 programs for the following school year. We are all totally committed to helping our students achieve their full potential, but not all students can achieve that right away. We work very hard, and this idea of merit pay based on standardized test score results is nothing but a lot of Republican ballyhoo!
John Amato
Fresh Meadows
Markey enthusiast
It was a distinct pleasure to meet Queens Assemblymember Margaret M. Markey at the Cardozo School of Law on September 25 and hear her speak to the inadequacy of New York’s laws protecting our children, “Markey pushes change in sex abuse law,” (10/04/07).
Both criminal and civil statutes in the state of New York need to be updated, as is the case in all too many of our states across the country.
The New York Catholic Conference, as well as New York’s bishops, should be pro-active in their support for the passage of this necessary legislation.
This is not a theological mystery or a matter of faith. It is about the protection of our children and I expect no less from my church.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
New Castle, DE
On nuclear energy
Our nation’s oil supply has been sorely tested and found wanting. The first shock wave hit us back in the 70’s and nothing was done about it! Now the problem has recurred again, with increased costs. One major source we have failed to sufficiently avail ourselves of is nuclear energy. In the United States, we currently have a mere 103 commercial nuclear power plants that generate only 20 percent of our nation’s annual energy needs.
In contrast, 442 nuclear power plants are providing electricity in 30 nations around the world. An additional 12 countries are presently constructing another 28 nuclear plants. France produced an amazing 78 percent of its electricity from its numerous nuclear power plants.
Going nuclear would greatly reduce our consumption of oil. Just consider that the energy contained in one uranium fuel pellet, which is about the size of the tip of your finger, would require 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil to produce the same amount of electricity!
Lastly, the amounts of pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases that are produced by a nuclear power plant are zero!
Frank S. Ferrari
Bayside
Letters To The Editor
Email us your letters to editorial@ queenscourier.com for publication in The Queens Courier or send them to The Queens Courier, 38-15 Bell Blvd., Bayside, NY 11361, attention: Editorial Department. Please include name and contact information.
