Local-Motion

I was half-asleep when I got out of the car Tuesday morning at the Mobil gas station on Round Swamp Road just off the eastbound Long Island Expressway in Plainview.

And so, as I stared at the gas pump, I couldn't quite comprehend the price signs.

The 87-octane Regular: $3.89.9. The 89-octane mid-grade: $3.99.9.

The 92-octane supreme? It was $4.09.9.

Yes, this was my first encounter with a $4-a-gallon gas pump.

I stood there for a moment, no knowing what to do. I mean, I'd usually pump the 92-octane into my yellow-and-black Mini Cooper S. But at $4 a gallon?

I stared at the 87-octane. I thought about it. I stared at the 92-octane.

Finally, after much debate, I decided to fill my car with the mid-grade gasoline -- at $3.99.9 per gallon. Yes, the equivalent of $4 per -- though, somehow, psychologically, not quite.

I thought back to the price of gas when I first began to drive. My first car was the old 1968 Plymouth Valiant that had been owned by my parents. This was 1980. A gallon of regular was going for about $1.25 a gallon -- though the federal government, in a shocking statement, predicted the price could reach $1.50 a gallon by the end of the year.

Well, it doesn't seem possible that the price is now hovering around $4. But it is.

How long, you have to wonder, before $4 a gallon is considered the good old days?

At the rate we're going, not long, I would bet. Oil is closing in on $120 a barrel. There's no end in sight. And we shouldn't expect the discovery of new oil supplies to suddenly cause the prices to drop. That isn't going to happen. A Japanese tanker, the Takayama, was attacked by pirates last week off the coast of Yemen. There have been terrorist attacks of oil refinery sites in Nigeria. There have been problems with oil workers in Venezuela.

Of course, there's the age-old problem of war in the Middle East.

All that said, you have to wonder how long it will be before gas tops $5 a gallon.

Or $10.

Which means we have to seriously find fuel alternatives -- and we're not talking battery power.

Synthetic fuels. Fuels that supply power . . . and mileage.

Fuels that are also cost-effective.

Fuels of the future.

Meanwhile, we're stuck. My car took 9.940 gallons of gas. The bill? It was $39.75.

Better safe than sorry is always a good thing. Sometimes.

Because as American Airlines canceled more than 500 flights nationwide -- more than 30 at LaGuardia Airport, alone -- on Tuesday and then did the same Wednesday in the name of federal compliance, the lingering question is "Why?" Why did it take the cancelation of so many flights, as American mechanics checked the electrical wiring in the wheel well areas of its MD-80 fleet, in the final hour, instead of having the work done correctly the first time? And why didn't the Federal Aviation Administration enforce its own mandates sooner -- instead of forcing such drastic measures?

Certainly, the move the ground the MD-80 fleet for maintenance was a good one, even though American officials insisted there were no safety concerns involved -- and that passengers were never in danger. Certainly, it was a good move -- unless, of course, you were one of the thousands of passengers who was stranded. The move made a mess of air travel through the New York-metro area Tuesday and again on Wednesday.

As a result, FAA officials took turns patting themselves on the back for laying down the law -- and American Airlines officials did the same for obeying the law.

Ah, but no matter how many apologies were also issued, it is a sin that officials -- of both the FAA and American -- made the public, the flying public, bear the burden without some sort of advance warning. We can only hope that such drastic measures will convince airlines it is better to deal with potential safety issues before the FAA puts them on a radar screen somewhere than it is to have to cancel flights in order to handle inspections. And we can only hope that FAA inspectors will be much more proactive -- and get out of bed with the airlines and the industry -- and start pushing safety inspections, making certain the rules are met before being forced to take such drastic measures in the future.

So, on Monday state legislators killed the congestion-pricing plan proposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

This, Bloomberg said Tuesday, is bad news for New York City -- costing New Yorkers both time and money. The money being the $354 million the city would have received in federal funding. The time, Bloomberg insists, being the hours spent in bumper-to-bumper traffic as our cars, trucks, SUVs and other vehicles needlessly pollute the atmosphere and wreak havoc on our health.

It all sounds so ominous.

But,.in all honesty, the real deal is it's not as ominous as Mayor Mike has made it out to be -- and congestion pricing wasn't the saving grace he made it out to be.

Sure, it's a reasonable idea. One that could provide some real pluses for New Yorkers. But, as we said from Day One: Only -- and we mean "only" -- once the mass transit infrastructure has been improved enough to make the system usuable for all metro-area New Yorkers, not just those who live in Manhattan.

Under the congestion-pricing plan proposed by Bloomberg, drivers would have had to pay a fee of between $8 and $21 per day to access Manhattan below 86th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The Mayor later revised this proposal to include only traffic heading below 60th Street. Still, it would be too much of a burden for drivers who have few other options but to drive into New York.

Sure, groups like the "Straphangers" embraced congestion pricing, singing its praises and talking about the wonders it would do for Manhattan. And the Mayor touted it as a god-send, as well. But, the truth is people who don't drive didn't understand the burden it would place on folks who do. I mean, let's be honest: No one drives into midtown or lower Manhattan on a week day because they want to. They do it out of necessity. It's not about money, either. It's about the ability to get there from here -- wherever that may be.

That isn't always possible for Long Islanders. And it isn't always possible for commuters living in the outlying boroughs -- or, New Jersey -- either. Which is why people drive.

What the now-dead proposal did was place the cart before the horse. And when New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver said Monday that the plan didn't have enough support -- and that Democrats "overwhelmingly" opposed the bid -- he was just being honest. Politics aside, the proposal needs to be re-considered -- but only if the Mayor and his staff can resolve some of the shortcomings. Find alternative funding for the Second Aevnue subway, build East Side Access for the Long Island Rail Road into grand Central Terminal and make public transportation more reliable -- and then we can talk. Until then?

It's a dead issue. And, it should be.

City officials were less-than-genuine about what congestion-pricing could accomplish -- and not honest at all about what it wouldn't/ They tried to sell New Yorkers a bill of goods in hopes of landing a fat surplus in federal funding that, in all honesty, would not have gone half as far as they claimed it would. Congestion pricing has worked -- to a degree -- in some European cities, mostly because the infrastructure was in place to afford it some success. But, even then, there were huge growing pains to overcome. City officials need to be realistic about this. They need to examine real-world solutions -- instead of just claiming, without merit, it will be wonderful for New Yorkers. Believe it or not, we're all just a little too saavy to take all the hype at face value. Now that the public has spoken it's time for city officials to find a better solution.

Unless state legislators change their minds, the congestion pricing plan pitched for the past year by Mayor Michael Bloomberg figures to die a tough death Monday in Albany. Mayor Mike swears the political winds will shift Monday -- and the plan will go through. But other state officials said the Mayor doesn't have enough support for the plan, which would charge drivers entering midtown-Manhattan below 60th Street between $8 and $21 daily.

And they said that won't change.

At stake for New York City is not just the future of the quality of life -- the public argument Bloomberg has been dropping since the plan was introduced -- but also $354 million in federal aide, the real reason everyone in New York City wants the plan in place, right now.

Pollution? Oh, yeah. Um, yeah . . . congestion pricing might help that. Volume of traffic? Again, maybe . . . The benefits to mass transit? Probably . . . eventually.

No, the real reason New York City officila want the congestion pricing plan introduced in the city has nothing to do with the health and welfare of the general publis. No matter what Mayor Mike -- or any other official -- would have you believe. No, the real reason is that the city stands to gain the $354 million in aide if a plan is in place. And, will lose it if a plan is not..

That could hurt some delevopments when it comes to mass transit. But, we'll believe that when we see it. Because we see congestion pricing as a plan that stands, as is, to benefit very few people in the metro area -- and provide funding that surely could be better spent somewhere else.

So, the City Council has finally backed Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- and approved his congestion-pricing plan for lower Manhattan.

So?

The New York State Legislature still needs to back the plan -- or New York City will lose $354 million in federal funding pledged to it last year. That money will go by the wayside if the state does not get on board by April 7.

We've said all along that congestion pricing is a noble idea -- but one that is impractical at best at this time for New York City. The idea, under Bloomberg's revised plan, is to charge drivers a daily fee to access Manhattan south of 60th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.. Those prices begin at $8 daily for cars and soar to $21 daily for trucks.

The original plan was to charge drivers south of 86th Street.

The idea is flawed, though, because the bottom line is that alternatives to access New York City are limited to some. Until better infrastructure -- and better transit systems -- can be established congestion pricing will simply be an idea in search of practical implementation. It will not solve the problem of over-crowded city streets. It will not solve pollution. It won't do much of anything, in fact, if passed -- other than to create a greater burden on working stiffs who have no other choice but to drive daily into Manhattan.

We've said it before -- and, we'll say it again: Congestion pricing sounds smart, but it won't work without having a state-of-the-art mass transit system in place.

Which means it's doomed to failure.

And though politicians like Mayor Michael Bloomberg continue to preach the virtues of congestion pricing for New York City -- it will cut down on traffic; it will cut down on pollution; it will raise money to fund mass transit -- a recent poll of New Yorkers found that most state voters are against congestion pricing, unless politicians ensure that the fees raised will be dedicated to building a better mass transit system for New York.

Those are the findings of the latest Quinnipiac poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University. The poll found that even though supporters claim the pricing plan would raise billions of dollars to fund mass transit in New York City, most voters said that would not support the plan unless there was a guarantee that those millions were dedicated to funding mass transit. And, in a recent "Issues" column in its latest Car & Travel magazine, the AAA said that it "cannot help but call the plan what it really is: a creative way to ensure a continuous stream of transit revenue" -- while having the potential to actually disrupt traffic and worsen congestion.

In fact, the AAA is dead-set against congestion pricing.

And so, apparently, are the voters.

All that said, we think it's time New York City officials -- Hizzoner included -- go back to the drawing board and attempt to figure a way to put the cart before the horse and not the other way around. Because, right now, the entire plan is simply a way to raise revenue for New York City while doing zero to ensure better traffic flow or a reduction in pollution. It demeans drivers. And, quite frankly, ignores their rights.

Which is a shame. Because with some real effort -- some real forethought, some real planning; some real development of our mass-transit infrastructure -- congestion-pricing would actually be a good thing for Manhattan and residents of the metro-area. Right now, it's not.

"With immense pleasure, we wish to notify you . . . "

Okay, so you know the rest, right? I've won trillions in the Eurostaats Lottery. I'm the fortunate recipient of a business proposal from some wealthy entrepreneur from the Ivory Coast. I'm a kind man -- and so some trusting widow / orphan / termininally ill prince or princess is going to put all their faith in me to help them deal with some big bad European bank in an effort to get back millions of dollars that are rightfully theirs, thereby earning me a huge share for my loving, caring efforts to be of assistance.

Ah, yes.

But this latest e-mail notice was different -- and, so you should be careful.

The notice from UK Universal Lottery Inc. not only informed me that my e-mail address -- chosen at random, of course -- had been selected, making me a winner of 1.5 million British pounds, but noted that the contest is AAA approved. Yes, that it is endorsed by the American Automobile Association. This, of course, is a logo designed to garner belief in the contest -- a trust from a base of loyal AAA members, first and foremost among them senior citizens.

Well, here's a message to all of you AAA members out there:

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Or, as AAA Automobile Club of New York spokesman Robert Sinclair said: "What a scam."

Yup. The AAA does not endorse this "universal lottery," which, of course, should come as no surprise -- since no legitimate agency we checked with has ever heard of it. Nor, for that matter, does Yahoo! or any of the other companies listed in the e-mail.

Obviously, scam artists use these logos and brand markings because they realize they engender trust among the recipients. Certainly, any driver knows that AAA members are incredibly loyal -- and lean on AAA for all sorts of advice concerning their daily lives: whether it's driving or travel or making vacation plans.

But, don't fall for this one. Because it isn't AAA approved -- no matter what the seal claims.

So, after denials, officials at Southwest Airlines now admit some of the aging Boeing 737s indentified in a recent Federal Aviation Administration inspection and maintenance probe do fly into Long Island-MacArthur Airport. Which should concern Long Islanders. Greatly. Since, no matter how much the situation is downplayed by Southwest, it still raises an eyebrow with anyone who knows anything about flying. And about airplanes.

To wit: Southwest faces a $10.2-million fine for keeping 46 of its 737-300 series aircraft in the air despite having missed a required inspection for fuselage cracks. Six were later found to have had hairline cracks. Then, last week, Southwest admitted it had ground 38 aircraft -- a large number of them 737-300 series jets -- to reinspect areas beneath the windows.

Four needed what the airline called "minor" repairs.

Southwest told Long Island it was all no big deal. The planes were being fixed. And besides, officials said, they didn't fly those 737s to Long Island.

Which, it turns out, was untrue.

In fact, Southwest flies as many as 11 of the 737-300s daily to MacArthur.

Why should any of this be alarming? After all, we're talking "minor" hairline cracks, right?

Well, the answer is Aloha Airlines Flight 243.

On April 28, 1988 -- 20 years ago next month -- Aloha Airlines Flight 243, a Boeing 737-200 series aircraft, was making its daily rounds between Honolulu International Airport, Maui and Hilo when, on the jump leg between Hilo and Honolulu, the passenger cabin ripped open -- and the roof at the front end of the cabin was blown off, sucking a flight attendant out of the jet to her death. The cause of the rapid decompression? A tear in the fuselage that had begun as a minor crack in the fuselage skin -- a crack that spread over time as the cabin was pressurized and then depressurized during each of the short-haul flights made by the Boeing 737.

As a result of the Aloha Airlines disaster inspection schedules for the Boeing 737 were ramped up, primarily because the jet is often used for short-haul trips -- meaning the cabin undergoes a greater number of pressurizations and depressurizations than aircraft used for long-haul flights.

Chances are an incident like the one that nearly doomed Aloha 243 -- it was a miracle that the crew ever managed to land the plane; an entire section of the roof and side of the plane was blown out, passengers sitting outside in the jetstream -- will ever happen again. Because, as a result of the incident, airlines have become much more diligent in their maintenance and inspections. The FAA has become tougher on enforcement of maintenance. Still, with the admission by Southwest it's clear more has to be done.

And that both the FAA and the flying public need to keep the pressure on airlines.

Sure, the Aloha incident involved a 200-series 737 -- and not a 300-series plane. But 20 years after Aloha 243 those 300-series 737s are getting into the same age range as the 200-series were back in 1988. And metal fatigue is always an issue in any aging aircraft.

Shame on Southwest for not being more diligent.

Fortunate for us they've had their hands held to the fire before something worse happened here on Long Island.

Tired of all those ridiculous, time-consuming delays at metropolitan area airports?

Well, a California research foundation think tank has proposed a solution, one it insists can increase capacity at Kennedy Airport, relieve congestion at Newark-Liberty and LaGuardia and do so without expansion of the overall footprint of the airports.

The answer, the Reason Foundation proposes in its March 2008 study, “Increasing Airport Capacity Without Increasing Airport Size,” is to build a third runway at Kennedy, nestled comfortably between the two main runways and without, it noted, compromising aircraft safety.

A third runway at Kennedy, combined with the Federal Aviation Administration's eventual expected implementation of the NextGen air traffic control system, could increase operations at Kennedy by 50 percent, while increasing operations at Newark by 45 percent and LaGuardia by 10 percent, the study determined.

All of which could translate into better on-time performances, fewer gate delays and more affordable ticket prices — while still increasing volume.

The addition of a third runway, however, would not likely help to alleviate weather-related delays, since the FAA has minimum runway spacing requirements for the minimum distance between parallel runways being utilized for instrument landings and takeoffs.

But, clearly, adding a runway between current runways 4R and 4L at Kennedy would be a good investment in the future of New York — no matter what the cost — since it’s painfully obvious the current system is woefully inadequate when it comes to 21st century traffic.

Study authors Viggo Butler and Robert W. Poole Jr. argue that expanding runway capacity within an airport’s current footprint “would mean that an urban area could receive the economic benefits that come along with continued growth in air service without the protracted battles over land acquisition, and without the long delays attendant to such battles.”

They also noted that in the New York area’s airspace, such improvement could mean that “delays and spacing requirements can be reduced or eliminated,” creating “a very significant increase in New York area capacity can be achieved, allowing the metropolitan area to meet demand for many years to come.”

Considering delays at area airports, such news is sure to be welcomed — if only someone can convince New York and New Jersey officials, as well as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, that this needs to be done. Now.

So, more than six years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the same loophole that allowed some of the hijackers to train on flight simulators still exists, Sen. Charles E. Schumer said Sunday. That includes 45 tri-state area flight school and more than 8,000 foreign student pilots who have not been cleared by the Transportation Security Administration -- foreign students who have been able to obtain pilot's licenses, Schumer said.

Which should make all of us wonder how, in this day and age, such a thing could happen.

In the wake of 9/11 news laws were put in place to require background checks that were to be completed prior to students receiving flight instruction. Seems logical to us. After all, advocates have argued for years for waiting periods for those attempting to buy guns. Why not background checks for folks wanting to become pilots.

But, of course, once again we see the problem with bureaucracy.

The TSA was supposed to crackdown onflight schools to make certain all the necessary background checks were completed -- and all the necessary documentation was in place. Instead, that hasn't happened. And who knows just how many potentially threatening scenarios now exist because of safety lapses that were supposed to protect America -- and Americans.

Now, Schumer is calling for spot inspections, fines for flight schools that knowingly accepted "barred students" and for new universal background checks.

Which seems like a good place to start.

But, officials who knowingly disregarded the mandates designed to protect us need more than just a slap on the wrist when all is said and done. They need to receive fines and serious jail time if found to have disregarded the law. Only then will the authorities be able to make certain these important anti-terrorism based laws are followed -- instead of simply being ignored in the age-old pursuit of profits.

Odds and ends . . .
Boyd Coddington could be gruff and even irrational. But the legendary wheel and hot-rod builder built some of the coolest rods and rims around -- becoming a TV personality in the process. The automotive sports world suffered a loss late last week when Coddington, 63, died unexpectedly -- apparently as the result of complications following a fall in January. He is probably best known to casual fans for his show and for building the legendary "Cadzilla" for ZZ Top rocker Billy Gibbons. But anyone who was a real motorhead knew his rim designs were ground-breaking -- and that the cars built in his shop were works of art . . . An airline passenger from Texas was sentenced recently to 10 months in jail -- after he threatened the crew of a JetBlue flight who refused to serve him alcohol. The 27-year-old man had made comments about shooting and killing the crew after the plane was diverted to Buffalo last June. There's dumb -- and there's dumber. But this one has to be right up there. Consider that in addition to the prison time, the man was also fined $2,800 . . . Our service announcement of the month goes to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for this one posted in February. Under the heading of an urgent service alert, MTA Bus posted this note: "All service is running normally." Ah, so if that is so urgent then we have to wonder if it's just normal when service isn't running normally . . . By the way, the Long Island Rail Road appears to be sliding further into the abyss with each passing day -- and it no longer is uncommon to see "mechanical trouble" leading to the cancellation of trains on a near-daily basis. In fact, within the past week alone, there have been a handful of cnacellations -- and even more delays -- due to mechanical and maintenance issues. It's seriously time for state and federal officials to step in and figure out what's going on with the railroad -- and get it fixed. The LIRR is, after all, the largest commuter railroad in the nation and the current state of operations is unforgivable. From gaps to problems with its diesel fleet to rail problems to an assortment of mechanical problems and troubles the railroad is sliding into a state of catastrophe. Something needs to be done to save it. Instead, the only thing commuters have received is a fare hike. That's just not fair.