Daily Voice «

» Runnin' Scared «

a Voice news blog

update notifications

email

subscribe
unsubscribe

categories

CSI Albany: Congestion Pricing Postmortem

Posted by Duncan Meisel at 9:31 AM, April 9, 2008

After death, it’s customary to conduct an autopsy. The mayor’s congestion pricing plan didn’t die on the field of battle with a vote count; it simply fizzed in a back room filled with Democratic legislators, so multiple causes of death may be in play.

The former parks commissioner, Henry Stern, at the New York Civic blog gives a detailed cause of death, and lays it out in plain numbers: congestion pricing failed to become law because there are more people wanting to drive to Manhattan than there are residents wanting to keep drivers out.

Stern thinks those feelings were no doubt fed by mistrust of the government, including broken MTA promises, and obvious political log-rolling in the city council. While a Democrat announced the end of pricing, some think the state GOP had a role to play in its downfall. Bloomberg’s political style is a potential culprit in the eyes of other observers.

Politicians across the state now have to deal with the inheritance. The Albany Project gives a scorecard of winners and losers for those following the horse race at home. Any way you cut it, the MTA has been left holding the bag, with the Senior Attorney for the Straphanger’s campaign saying that the vote boosts the agency’s deficit to $17.5 billion. (At least New Yorkers can be confident that their transit dollars will have a valued second life as an artificial reef.)

comments

Stop blaming Assembly dems and Silver, this congestion tax was so poorly prepared and unbalanced, it was insulting to even present it to the Assembly for a vote. "Free" passes for the NJ tunnel crowd while everyone else pays? "Exemptions" for the NYPD and Fire Dept, who were demanding exemptions from congestion pricing, while still parking illegally for "free"? How about 142,000 government sector vehicles with parking permits, all clogging our streets and also wanting exemptions from congestion pricing?

While Bloomberg has been in office in the last 7 years, NYC has lost $322-million in lost parking meter revenue from government sector vehicles illegally parked on meters [Schaller Consulting, 2006: NYC loses $46-million/year due to government sector commuters parking illegally on meters].

The Mayor wants a passing grade, but his congestion tax bill failed because he didn't do his homework.

Posted by: Manhattan Downtowner at April 9, 2008 3:23 PM

To comment by Manhattan Downtowner I would add that I think it profoundly unfair to burden a neighboring borough with this tolling craziness. Let City Hall really get to work with the vast arsenal of resources freely available to it, like residential parking permits, reducing needless street sweeping, excessive official permit issuance and abuse, increased parking meter fees, fixing the Verrazano toll mess (call your Congressman!), taxi stands. Increased parking lot taxes. And on and on.

The Mayor could quickly regain momentum by convening experts in the field and getting their input, rather than trying to impose from on high. The Pope is coming to town soon, let him do the imposing!

Posted by: William Harris at April 9, 2008 3:46 PM

Manhattan Downtowner's comments a perfect example of why this "debate" was so dispiriting. So, you don't think the plan was perfect? I don't remember a single piece of Federal, state or city policy passed in my lifetime that was. So what? It was a BIG, bold and visionary step forward. One that would have moved congestion pricing from debate to fact. The rates, exceptions, and parking permit rules would inevitably change and fluctuate (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse) over the years and decades to come. Such minutia was not a legitimate reason to oppose a proposal.

What next, let's oppose the city having it's own police and fire services because parking permits would be abused and some precincts would have more manpower or better precinct house locations than others? And by the way, exactly how has defeating this proposal, and the associated disaster it will have on transit funding, helped stop parking permit abuse or increased meter collection. This is a caliber of dishonest attack that would make the right-wing attack machine proud.

And to Mr. Harris: The plan did not burden residents of neighborhoods either inside or outside the zone. It merely charged car users (not all, or even most, New Yorkers), who go to Manhattan (and even smaller percentage) a small fraction of the costs that the rest of us have picked up for them for years! Since when is ending (or reducing, really) an exploitative subsidy the same as burdening someone? Why is your "right" to drive a car into my neighborhood for free so sacred that it must come regardless of the cost to my family's health and quality of life, and to my fellow straphangers? Drivers benefit, and have for years, from tremendously more subsidy and privilege than non-drivers. Yet when we try to claim just a little back, a little cleaner air for the residents (which we share with the drivers), a little more subsidy for mass transit and a little less subsidy for private car, we are "burdening" you? Talk about spoiled and entitled!


Posted by: A Villager at April 9, 2008 4:47 PM

post a comment



Remember Me?
(you may use HTML tags for style)
 
Three best things to do in New York on
Wednesday, August 27