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.