Bloomberg and the Press Give Joe Bruno a Pass on Congestion Pricing

Posted at 10:33 AM, April 15, 2008

By Shaunna Murphy, Shea O’Rourke, Marguerite A. Suozzi

Tabloid headlines and even New York Times editorials echoed City Hall last week in targeting Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver as the one-man wrecking crew who obstructed Mike Bloomberg’s congestion pricing program. The mayor’s post-defeat scapegoating, however, has been as politically tilted as his pre-defeat contributions. The mayor has written checks totaling half a million dollars to Senate Republican boss Joe Bruno, who, like Silver, never brought the traffic plan to the floor yet miraculously became “the invisible man” in all the finger-pointing that followed.

Since congestion pricing's defeat, The Times has called Silver "unworthy of his office." "Here was a chance for Silver to show some real leadership," Schenectady's Daily Gazette railed. "His shortsightedness will cost the city $354 million in federal funds," Newsday piped in.

And the mayor certainly isn't going out of his way to refute the blame. His deputy mayor, Kevin Sheekey, told New York 1 that Silver has not been an effective leader in the past week. "I don't see any courage in Albany," he added. Bloomberg also made several statements implicating Silver as the main culprit. "I do not think that any one person should decide what's right," the mayor said at a press conference at Georgetown University.

But others find the finger-pointing unwarranted. "The editorial attacks on Shelly [Silver] are totally unfair," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), the plan's leading opponent in the Assembly. "In the end, the overwhelming majority of the Democratic conference made the decision here. Probably 80 percent opposed the legislation."

Despite the onslaught of editorial boards blaming Silver for the plan's failure, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno had an equal chance at passing the bill. Silver stepped forward and said he wasn’t bringing the pricing bill to the Assembly floor because the overwhelming majority of Assembly Democrats opposed it during a protracted, closed-door, conference. Bruno, on the other hand, never said what the position of the majority of his GOP conference was, particularly the many Republican senators representing commuter districts as far away as Rockland County.

Bruno appears to have flirted with the notion of a floor vote only to put Senate Democrats in the difficult position of voting for or against it, but no one in Albany believes he had the votes to pass the bill from his own conference. Silver and Bruno, like the legislative leaders that preceded them for decades, rarely, if ever, allow floor votes on a bill unless a majority of their own members favor it.

Three senators interviewed by the Voice indicated that Bruno was merely posturing on the bill, raising questions about the Bloomberg administration’s evenhandedness in their assessment of how the biggest reform effort of their second term was scuttled. The difference was that as the Monday night deadline got closer, it was Silver who finally spoke up about what was actually true in both houses: This bill didn’t have enough support to pass.

“The assembly, by not voting, gave Joe an out — he appears to have made a promise to the Mayor without actually believing he could deliver it,” said Senator Liz Krueger (D- Manhattan), who was in favor of the bill. “Joe didn’t think he had the votes in the senate, and once the assembly publicly announced that they weren’t bringing a vote, he didn’t have to try anymore. ... At least the assembly said they didn’t try to bring it to the floor.

Since introducing the plan on Earth Day last summer, Bloomberg has donated an estimated $1.2 million of his own money to the Senate Republican Committee and $50,000 to the Republican Assembly, but has not donated a dime to statewide committees for senate and assembly Democrats. In the final accounting, Bloomberg's actual contributions will probably be even greater than initially projected, according to Senator Krueger.

“They don’t have to report any new filings until July," Krueger said. “He could have given them anything they wanted — we have no idea what he gave them in total. I suspect that the adding up of the amounts will be much more than reported so far."

Polar divisions between upstate Republicans — with access to Bloomberg's campaign contributions — and metro-area Republicans — whose constituents didn't want to pay $8 every time they drove into Manhattan — would have left the deciding votes in the hands of the Democrats. Had the Dems rejected congestion pricing, the city’s pro-pricing and pro-Bloomberg media certainly would have taken notice again and again before the fall election season.

According to Long Island Senator Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), who opposed the bill, there was never strong support from his GOP counterparts in the Senate, primarily out of fear that Long Island would turn into a giant parking lot. As to why upstate Republicans would have any interest in going against the wishes of their city brethren, Johnson could only guess: "Obviously there were stories about how the mayor donated half a million dollars to the senate campaigns, so that might have had something to do with it," he said. "I just think it's rather a shame that we didn't get a chance to hear from them."

Krueger said that communities outside of the metro area, who wouldn't be nearly as affected by the bill, don't necessarily need to have that much of a say in the matter. "If you’re north of commuting distance from New York City, you don’t have a horse in this race,” Krueger said. Still, even if there had been a vote, Krueger said, there was enough vocal opposition from metro-area Republican senators to make Bruno question whether he could do his part in getting Bloomberg's bill passed.

"I’m up there, and I never heard any Senate Republican saying they would support this bill," Krueger said. "There were plenty of Long Island, Staten Island, and Westchester Senators who had no intention of voting for it. Joe Bruno would have needed a lot of Republican Senators to vote for this for it to pass, and he never implied he had those votes. He never brought it to the floor."

But according to Senate spokesman Mark Hansen, Bruno "has a very good relationship with mayor Bloomberg," "is supportive of the plan for congestion pricing" and would have brought the bill to the floor for a vote last Monday, when the assembly passed on taking it up, had enough senators been present. As many as 17 Democrats boycotted the session that day, according to press reports.

Senator Johnson said the idea that Bruno wanted a vote but was let down by a boycott by the Democrats is a fiction. “He had enough members in the Senate chamber to bring this to the floor," Johnson said. "At one point, there were 34 members of the Senate on the floor, and by the end of the day Monday there were 45. He could’ve brought it to a vote at any point, but he chose not to, and the reason is that he knew he didn’t have enough votes to pass it.”

Krueger said that Senate Democrats were primarily concerned with budget disputes that day, and that Bruno never actually called the Rules Committee or the Finance Committee into session about congestion pricing; a necessary step before bringing any bill to the floor.

Senator Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset), one of several Long Island Republicans opposed to the bill, said his impression was that the Senate was never planning to consider congestion pricing that day, an omission that could only be attributable to Bruno, who sets the Senate calendar.

"To my knowledge, it was not meant to be brought to the table that day,” Marcellino said. “It was never on the schedule."

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.)

The Death of Congestion Pricing: Who's To Blame?

Posted by Heather Muse at 11:45 AM, April 8, 2008

Sheldon Silver appears to be the villain of the death of congestion pricing (or, to use the Post's spelling, "Conge$tion Pricing." The News accuses the Assembly Speaker of "murder[ing the] mayor's congestion dream" on page one, and follows it up with a scathing column by Michael Daly about Silver's propensity to say "no" to votes that Silver does not support. The Post's Frederic U. Dicker's analysis piece notes that this vote "wasn't personal," unlike Silver's defeat of the West Side stadium three years ago. Both columnists note that Silver was looking out for his political career, as suburban Democrats in the Assembly opposed the plan.

In the straight coverage of the story, both papers highlight Bloomberg's "special kind of cowardice" statement, with the Post using the "c-word" and the News choosing to highlight the "It takes true leadership and courage to embrace new concepts and ideas and to be willing to try something…Unfortunately, both are lacking in the Assembly today" part of Hizzoner's statement.

The News, whose editorial board supported the plan, has much more coverage of the plan's death than the Post. This includes another editorial taking Silver to task for not putting the plan up to a vote. An interesting juxtaposition is the News' "man on the street" sidebar in which the "motorist," "straphanger" and "merchant" all opposed the plan, which just illustrates how divided the city is on the issue.

Obviously congestion pricing is a controversial issue, but at least one aspect of the controversy is the start of a dialogue on what this city needs to do to lessen its ecological footprint. Let's just see how long it actually lasts.

Bloomberg on Congestion Pricing Failure: 'A Special Kind of Cowardice'

Posted by Michael Clancy at 9:06 AM, April 8, 2008

STATEMENT BY MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG ON THE FAILURE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO VOTE CONGESTION PRICING:

“Today is a sad day for New Yorkers and a sad day for New York City. Not only won’t we see the realization of a plan that would have cut traffic, spurred our economy, reduced pollution and improved public health, we will also lose out on nearly $500 million annually for mass transit improvements and $354 million in immediate federal funds.

“I will be speaking with Secretary Peters and will express my thanks for her commitment to innovative solutions to real problems facing large cities today. I will also express my deep disappointment that, sadly, even Washington, which most Americans agree is completely dysfunctional, is more willing to try new approaches to longstanding problems than our elected officials in the State Assembly. It takes true leadership and courage to embrace new concepts and ideas and to be willing to try something. Unfortunately, both are lacking in the Assembly today.

“If that wasn’t shameful enough, it takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience– on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year. Every New Yorker has a right to know if the person they send to Albany was for or against better transit and cleaner air. People know where I stood, and where members of the City Council stood. They deserved at least that from Albany."

Bloomberg continued:

“The idea for congestion pricing didn’t start in our Administration and it won’t end today. The $354 million we would have received from Washington tomorrow will go to another city in another state. But the problems congestion pricing could have helped solve are only going to get worse. And too many people from more than 170 environmental, labor, public health and business organizations recognize the merits of congestion pricing and hopefully someday, we will have more leaders in the Legislature who recognize it too.

“We will continue to push forward on the other 126 proposals in PlaNYC that will reduce our carbon footprint and green our City. We will move forward on proposals to plant 1 million trees, introduce hybrid taxis and install green roofs on City buildings. Congestion pricing is just one part of our ambitious agenda.

“I want to thank everyone who has worked tirelessly for congestion pricing and I want to acknowledge the courage and leadership that our partners in the City Council, Speaker Quinn, Governor Paterson, former Governor Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco and some in the Legislature have shown by working together to convince their colleagues to support congestion pricing. Together, we will continue to work to build a greener, greater New York City.”

Gov. David Paterson issued the following statement:

"Earlier today Congestion Pricing failed to achieve the consensus necessary to move forward on the state level. As I've said all along, this is an important program to reduce congestion and pollution in New York City while raising vitally needed funds for mass transit. Now we need to come up with innovative approaches to the challenge of funding mass transit. Over the next several days I will be working closely with my colleagues in the legislature and experts both in and outside of government to arrive at such solutions."

Bloomberg Administration, Council Speaker Quinn on Congestion Pricing's Defeat

Posted by Michael Clancy at 5:30 PM, April 7, 2008

John Gallagher, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, issued the following statement on the death of congestion pricing:

"What we are witnessing today is one of the biggest cop-outs in New York’s history. After insisting on the formation of a commission to make recommendations for a bill, and then for the City Council to vote to endorse that bill, the Assembly needs to stand up and be counted. They owe it to the majority of New Yorkers who support this plan, the scores of environmental groups, public health organizations, business leaders, unions, and the public at large, to put this proposal to a public vote.

Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn issued a statement also:
"I am disappointed that we missed an opportunity to make a significant investment in our mass transportation system, an investment that would have secured the long-term vitality of our city and improved the health of people living in our most congested neighborhoods.

In spite of this setback, the Council remains fully committed to environmental responsibility and to improving and expanding our mass transit system. We must now build new coalitions around forward-looking transportation policy that will improve public health and move people out of their cars and into buses, trains and ferries."

CONGESTION PRICING DEAD IN ALBANY

Posted by John DeSio at 3:41 PM, April 7, 2008

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s crusade to charge drivers to enter Manhattan died its final death in Albany today, when Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver announced that there would be no vote on the plan in his legislative chamber.

The federal deadline to pass congestion pricing, and therefore receive $354 million in funding to enact the plan, is midnight tonight.

Silver said that the members of his Democratic conference were not prepared to move forward on the legislation, and lacking that support the bill would not be considered by his house.

"Many of them just don't believe in the concept," said Silver. "Many of them think this bill is flawed. So an overwhelming majority of the conference that opposes congestion pricing, and for that reason, the congestion pricing bill did not have anywhere near a majority of the Democratic conference, and will not be on the floor of the Assembly."

Congestion Pricing Faces Albany Gridlock

Posted by Duncan Meisel at 10:17 AM, April 3, 2008

The City Council may have greenlighted congestion pricing Monday night in a ‘home rule message’ of support for the mayor’s plan, but legislators in Albany have final say about instituting $8 tolls for driving below 60th street in Manhattan. And while the last few weeks have shown that just about anything can happen in Albany, it ain't looking too good for congestion pricing.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told NY1 that it was a matter of "philosophy," and he didn't say much at all to Daily News reporter who tried to get his position. Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries told the Post congestion pricing was on "life support."

The New York Civil Liberties Union is asking Albany lawmakers to strengthen privacy protections in the bill before approving congestion pricing.

“Our lawmakers may deem congestion pricing right for New York City, but it would be wrong for them to adopt legislation that does not effectively address the serious privacy issues raised by a system that would rely on hundreds of surveillance cameras monitoring and recording lawful activity,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. “New Yorkers should not have to trade their privacy to enforce an $8 toll, and happily they don’t need to.”

Some background: The Gotham Gazette’s Wonkster provides a great recap of the late day lead-up to the Council vote: a few Council members described arm-twisting and “bribes” of borough-specific transit upgrades on the part of pricing proponents to get the resolution passed. During the afternoon session several members voiced opposition to how and why the council was voting on the proposal. Also, the City Council’s endorsement came only after the State Senate amended their version of a pricing bill, upping the tolls for drivers from New Jersey unless the state contributes $1 billion to MTA, amended the plan’s fee structure, and widening a fee exemption for handicapped drivers.

Congestion pricing remained unpopular with politicians from the outer boroughs, with the exception of the Bronx, where all seven of that borough’s Councilmembers backed the proposal. Streetsblog has a breakdown and analysis of the vote count. Organized opposition hasn’t let up its attack on the plan, with Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free telling the New York Times CityRoom that the deadline for state funding has already passed, and other groups pushing an argument about pricing's impact on the operations of non-profits. Exact political ramifications from the vote seem uncertain, but the endorsement split candidates in the Staten Island Borough President’s race, and set-off a campaign for City Council by a pricing opponent in the Bronx.

Congestion pricing is meant raise funds for MTA transit improvements, but many doubt whether New York will see tangible results. OnNYTurf points out that the authority has a fairly large credibility gap to fill, and Second Avenue Sagas points out the shallowness of MTA promises with regards to its recent fare hike. Still, the promises keep coming, this time with transit officials promising a Bronx to Lower Manhattan express bus line, should congestion pricing receive final approval.

(Regardless of whether MTA actually builds any of the new transit projects, reducing sometimes terrifying subway ads might be a reason all of its own to support new revenue sources for the authority).

That April 7th deadline is coming up fast.

The Congestion Pricing Bill

Posted by John DeSio at 5:01 PM, March 25, 2008

For opponents and advocates alike, the congestion pricing bill has been an exercise in imagination. But the full text of the bill that Mayor Bloomberg will put before the City Council is now public, Streetsblog has it online, and more details are emerging.

WNYC’s Brian Lehrer is asking his listeners to comb through the bill to find interesting tidbits about the law. Here’s a few bits worth noting:

Bloomberg's Congestion Pricing Plan Has Rivals

Posted by John DeSio at 2:42 PM, February 29, 2008

Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan picked up some Albany competition yesterday, and the quick growth of support for the new proposal could spell disaster for the mayor’s anti-traffic dreams.

Standing on the steps of City Hall, Westchester Assembly Democrat Richard Brodsky issued an alternative proposal to Bloomberg’s plan to charge drivers entering Manhattan on weekdays during peak driving times. Brodsky’s plan would largely rely on increasing taxi fares and punishing traffic violators, rather than charging a toll to enter Manhattan, as a means of raising transit funding and decreasing auto traffic.

“It’s simple, and it’s progressive,” said Brodsky. “It also qualifies for the federal money while the mayor’s proposals do not. On a whole bunch of levels it makes sense.”

Though insiders predict that the City Council will vote to support one of the congestion proposals, the toll must also pass Albany muster. But with Brodsky claiming at least 28 assembly members supporting his proposal, and potentially picking up more supporters as the days pass, the Assembly might be close to creating a firewall that none of the Bloomberg-backed proposals could ever break.

The new Brodsky plan would, for starters, increase the initial taxi fee from $2.50 to $6.50 and decrease the 1/5 mile charge by a nickel, which would significantly boost the charge for shorter trips while keeping the fare relatively stable for longer treks. The proposal would also limit taxi cruising by increasing the number of cab stands in Manhattan, would beef up enforcement on parking violations and traffic laws, and would crack down on parking permit abuse.

All told, Brodsky expects that his plan would bring anywhere between $362 and $372 million in yearly transit funding. In addition, Brodsky said that his plan and his plan alone would ensure that the City would remain eligible for $354 million in federal grants promised to the City should they implement a congestion pricing mechanism.

Supporters of the mayor’s plan are unconvinced that Brodsky’s new proposal will accomplish the funding and environmental goals that Bloomberg’s original plan put forward. Increasing the cost of taxi trips would do nothing to reduce private car and truck congestion. And Brodsky’s plan would do nothing to reduce congestion outside of Manhattan’s central business district, while the benefits of Bloomberg’s plan would extend to Brooklyn, Queens and northern Manhattan.

“The good news is that Assembly Member Brodsky has finally let go of his license plate rationing scheme,” said Paul Steely White, executive director of the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives, which supports congestion pricing. “The bad news is that this sketch of a plan continues in the same vein: a half-baked distraction that does nothing to reduce unnecessary driving and little to improve public transit.”

Brodsky disagreed. The original Bloomberg plan created a northern border for the congestion pricing zone at 86th Street (the border has been shifted to 60th Street), and estimates for that plan’s annual take stood to about $400 million. “This raises about the same amount of money without any huge new bureaucracy and without any unfair tax on the poor and middle class,” said Brodsky.

Ad Campaign to Push Congestion Pricing

Posted by John DeSio at 12:00 PM, February 26, 2008

City residents may be lukewarm to the concept of congestion pricing, but with hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation funding hanging in the balance, supporters of Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan to charge drivers to enter Manhattan are taking their case to the people.

A coalition of transportation advocates, labor and other non-profit groups will begin a television and print advertising campaign in March designed to urge commuters to visit their new website and learn more about why New Yorkers, and their elected officials, should find congestion pricing to be a worthy program.

Originally, Bloomberg’s plan called for charging vehicles $8 and commercial vehicles $21 to enter Manhattan during peak driving hours on weekdays below 86th Street. In January the 17-member Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission charged with considering a variety of congestion pricing methods put forward several alternatives, including a modification of the original plan that moves the pricing zone’s northern border to 60th Street.

With the legislative deadline for congestion pricing set for March 31, the ad campaign represents the final public push of a well-funded transit movement that many have been skeptical of since it launched last April. That skepticism aside, congestion pricing supporters hope New Yorkers take the message of the ads to heart: act now for transit improvements or pay forever.

“Congestion pricing is the best way to prepare this growing, dynamic city for a future with a million more people by 2030,” said Ramon Cruz of Environmental Defense. “By offering every New Yorker a fast, environmentally sound commute, we can tackle the twin challenges of climate change and economic justice. With our city’s population growing and our streets and subways already overcrowded, now is the time act.”

New Congestion Pricing Options as the Debate Continues

Posted by John DeSio at 3:21 PM, January 11, 2008

Congressman Anthony Weiner linked congestion pricing with the Bush administration—surely, one way to turn off many New Yorkers— at forum hosted by New York Civic.

New Yorkers support the stated goal of Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan—improving mass transit—but just aren’t convinced that the government will follow through on its promises.

A Quinnipiac poll released yesterday found that City residents would support congestion pricing if the money is used to fund mass transit improvements, 60-37, though they oppose the idea without that caveat. Since the objective of congestion pricing is to raise money for public transportation the poll shows that New Yorkers are ready to jump on board, said Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives.

“New York is a transit town. And when New Yorkers know that congestion pricing means hundreds of new buses and subway cars, new bus routes and more reliable service, they come on board,” said White. “It’s up to the City, and advocates like us, to make sure New Yorkers know these benefits are coming.”

White’s group is pushing legislators to create a so-called “lock box” for funds raised by congestion pricing, to ensure that they are used only for transit improvements. On Wednesday night Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City and perhaps the most ardent supporter of Bloomberg’s plan, admitted that a major problem congestion pricing has faced is the public’s lack of faith in the government to do the right thing, either with the funding raised by the program or with the information collected through the camera system. She noted that even though only five percent of Manhattan commuters are coming to the City by cars, the opposition to congestion pricing cuts across all types of commuters.

“The biggest source of opposition to congestion pricing…is really the fact that people don’t trust the government, whether it’s the bureaucracy of the MTA or elected officials, to really take the money and spend it on things that will make a difference in their life in terms of mass transit,” said Wylde in a panel discussion on the issue hosted by former Parks Commissioner Henry Stern’s New York Civic organization and held at the Museum of the City of New York,

She told those in attendance that the 17-member Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, of which she is a member, is making a good faith effort to address the concerns of opponents and put forward a congestion pricing plan that everyone can support. This would be a plan that was responsive to the community, that would listen to their concerns, and would do everything it could to assure New Yorkers that the money would be put back into the transit system.

She further noted that most commuters to Manhattan are driving alone. With an overwhelming 95 percent of commuters using mass transit, said Wylde, polling numbers on the issue should look much different, if not for the trust gap between government and the public.

Though their final recommendations are not due until the end of the month yesterday the commission released the particulars of the five plans it will consider as the solution to traffic congestion.

Aside from the mayor’s original plan, which charges drivers $8 and trucks $21 to enter Manhattan below 86th Street during peak driving hours, four new alternatives have also emerged for discussion. One alternative would see the northern barrier dropped to 60th Street and charge for only inbound trips. Another calls for tolling the free bridges over the Harlem and East Rivers, while another implements a license plate rationing system. The fifth proposal offers a combination of congestion pricing and on-street parking fees.

Each idea comes with its own unique set of problems, according to Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Traffic is a horrendous problem, New Yorkers agree,” said Carroll. “But they reject all the ideas that are being talked about to ease it. Voters remain firm in their opposition to congestion pricing, but they would support it if— IF—the money is used to improve mass transit. And when they dust off that old idea to toll the East River bridges—fuhgeddaboutit. That idea even makes congestion pricing look good."

Congressman Anthony Weiner, an all-but-declared candidate for mayor in 2009, took a different route on the topic of government trust, stating that congestion pricing is nothing more than a Republican Trojan horse aimed at eliminating federal transportation subsidies. Congestion pricing would mean less money for the City, he said.

"There’s a reason George Bush’s administration likes this plan,” said Weiner. “Think about why it is.” Weiner argued that a “low tax, small government” president like Bush was pushing for a large government program, complete with a new tax, to further the idea that municipalities should pay for their own mass transit improvements, not the federal government. Republicans from small town districts in places like Texas, said Weiner, resent the idea that their money paid through the federal gas tax is used to build our subways. “They’ve never liked it,” said Weiner.

“The moment you start to see $200, $300, $400 million is the moment my friends in Washington start saying, ‘well, any additional monies that go in we’re going to take off the top before we send it to you,’” said Weiner, who noted that Republicans in the State Senate have put forward a similar plan to skim from the top of the funding pile whatever congestion pricing raises for the City.

Weiner even relayed a recollection of a conversation he had with a Connecticut Republican Congressman in April, when Bloomberg first announced his congestion pricing proposal. Weiner proposed a multi-state, multi-party coalition to fight the plan, but after explaining congestion pricing his Republican colleague he was surprised to find that he would support it. An $8 charge was nothing, he told Weiner. His Connecticut constituents would pay $80 to get the “riff raff” from Weiner’s district out of the way as they drove through midtown.

Michael O’Loughlin, director of the Campaign for New York’s Future and a congestion pricing supporter, argued that simply because the Bush administration supported something did not make it automatically a bad idea. “Just because the Bush administration is willing to give New York $354 million to help us put in place a system that will reduce traffic congestion and get us better transit doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea,” he said, setting up a later conversation on just who thought the Bush administration was worse and just how bad they were.

“To my colleague who sits on the panel,” said Weiner to O’Loughlin, “just because George Bush has an idea doesn’t mean it’s a bad one? So far they answer to that is yes.” Weiner was applauded, but Wylde upped the Bush-bashing ante by mocking the idea that the president has a long-term plan to eliminate transit subsidies.

“I think that the congressman is giving the Bush administration far more credit than they deserve…in terms of being able to plan out such a strategic approach,” said Wylde to even wilder applause.

The forum also featured a some exaggeration regarding the potential negatives of the plan. Former Queens City Council Member Walter McCaffery, who lobbies against congestion pricing as the head of Keep New York City Congestion Tax Free, presented the absolute worst-case scenario for plan. In noting that those who pay tolls will see those fees deducted from the congestion charge, McCaffery put forward a situation where the most vulnerable City residents would be severely hurt by the charge while the wealthiest residents of the Garden State would ride high in our City.

“When you stop and think of the fact that we’re now going to have a senior citizen couple who comes from Woodside, who now has to drive to go to NYU Medical for cancer treatment…will have to pay $8, that’s not a particularly fair item, or public policy, your putting into place,” said McCaffery, “while individuals who come from New Jersey, millionaires from New Jersey…will ultimately pay zero, that’s not fair at all.”

The comment received at least one audible groan from an forum attendee, likely upset that McCaffery had conjured such a melodramatic example.

Congestion Zone Drivers Earn More $$$: Report

Posted by Michael Clancy at 9:32 AM, December 12, 2007

The commuters who drive into Mayor Bloomberg's proposed congestion pricing zone earn more money than those who take public transportation to the heart of Manhattan, according to a new independent analysis.

The average yearly income of drivers in to Manhattan was 24 percent higher than other commuters, $75,523 versus $60,889, according to “Behind the Wheel: Who Drives Into The Proposed ‘Congestion Zone?’,” a report by the city's Independent Budget Office, which took a deeper look at who drives and who takes mass transit into Manhattan below 86th Street each weekday.

The IBO also found that, when looking at the extremes of income distribution examined in the report, drivers were more likely to be in the top ten percent of earners and less likely to be in the bottom ten percent. More drivers came from outside the five boroughs than from within, according to the report, and those City drivers still made more money than their non-driver counterparts.

“These findings largely counter concerns that congestion pricing would disproportionately affect workers less able to afford additional commuting costs,” the report said.

All this proves the arguments of congestion pricing supporters, said Wiley Norvell, spokesperson for Transportation Alternatives. Norvell’s group and other congestion pricing supporters have made the argument that income disparities between drivers and other commuters were so great that the congestion charge would not have a negative effect on the working class.

And while some might question the statistics of interested activists, the IBO report is “unassailable proof” that congestion pricing supporters have been right all along, Norvell said.

“Folks that are using the poor to kill this plan are being really cynical, and are not being truthful,” said Norvell, who specifically referenced Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. Brodsky has in large part led the fight against congestion pricing while championing the middle-class, said Norvell, even though Transportation Alternatives’ study found that drivers from his district earn $176,231 annually.

“This confirms what we’ve been saying all along,” said Norvell. “[The IBO report is] a big shot in the arm for advocates looking to bolster our case, and we’re glad to see it.”

Bronx Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, who has stood with Brodsky during the fight over congestion pricing, felt that the IBO report’s findings were no real surprise. Of course drivers earn more money, said Dinowitz, because you need more money to drive a car. Still, Dinowitz felt that the income disparities were not as great as congestion pricing advocates make them out to be.

This was especially true when one compared City-living drivers, who the IBO state make $41,209 annually, compared to $32,279 for the City’s other commuters. No matter what you think of congestion pricing, said Dinowitz, you would never think $40,000-per-year makes anyone rich.

“It’s obvious that they make more money,” said Dinowitz of drivers. “But even if their average income is higher, most of these drivers are still middle class.”

He added, “People who are rich get driven, they don’t drive.”

Most New Yorkers Oppose Congestion Pricing: Poll

Posted by Michael Clancy at 10:19 AM, August 31, 2007

Photo by Midweekpost via Flickr

While 89 percent of New Yorkers say traffic congestion is a "very" or "somewhat serious" problem in the city, 57 percent of the same people polled by Quinnipiac University are opposed to congestion pricing.

But when asked if they would support congestion pricing if the money collected were used to stave off mass transit fare hikes and bridge and tunnel toll increases, 57 percent of the New York City voters polled said they would.

"Congestion pricing is a bad idea, most New Yorkers say, unless politicians use the proceeds to prevent transit-fare increases. Then a majority support the idea," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in a press release.

Manhattan was the only borough were congestion pricing had majority support.

Borough Brnx Kngs Man Qns StIsl Men Wom

Support 21% 34% 54% 30% 39% 40% 32%
Oppose 74% 60% 36% 61% 56% 54% 59%
---N/A- 5% 6% 10 % 9% 5% 6% 9%

When Runnin' Scared wrote about congestion pricing in July, the outer borough contempt for congestion pricing was reflected in many reader comments.

Posted by: Disgusted in Staten Island at July 19, 2007 4:38 PM:

This is terrible. This shows Spitzer's contempt for people who live in the Outer Boroughs. The congestion tax will make already overcrowed express buses and subways even more miserable. Even worse, Bloomberg will give away the money from this to his rich friends, like he is constantly doing with taxpayer and transit rider money. This is a scam and a vicious attack against the middle class. Bloomberg and Spitzer should be ashamed of themselves.

Other commenters, who did not name their borough of residence, supported congestion pricing.

Posted by: Mark at July 20, 2007 6:01 PM:

Referring to congestion pricing as a tax is misguided at best and a deliberate lie at worst. Subway and bus riders pay every day -- they're called fares. Drivers need to learn that you are not a special class with special privileges. If transit riders have to pay, why should drivers be any different? I'd laugh if your fumes weren't interfering with my breathing.

Read the full results of the Quinnipiac poll.

Congestion Pricing Panel Named

Posted by Michael Clancy at 5:39 PM, August 21, 2007

According to a press release from Mayor Bloomberg's office, the 17-member congestion pricing panel —3 appointees each from Bloomberg, Governor Spitzer, the City Council, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and one each from the Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith and the Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco— breaks down as follows:

Congestion Pricing Gets a $354 Million Boost

Posted by Michael Clancy at 11:20 AM, August 14, 2007

The U.S. Department of Transportation has agreed to give the city $354 million to implement a congestion pricing plan or some other traffic mitigation scheme that lowers traffic in Manhattan by six percent—the same reduction promised by Mayor Bloomberg's initial plan.

The funding clears one hurdle for Bloomberg's controversial congestion pricing plan because the compromise Albany lawmakers agreed upon last month required that the state or the city come up with $250 million to implement a traffic plan.

Bloomberg's proposal, however, still needs to be approved by a 17-member commission that consists of: 3 appointees from the mayor, 3 appointees from the Governor, 3 appointees from the City Council, 3 appointees from the state senate majority leader, 3 appointees from the state assembly speaker, and one each from the senate minority leader and the assembly minority leader.

The commission must approve a traffic mitigation plan, but necessarily the mayor's congestion pricing scheme. But any plan approved by the commission to achieve a 6 percent reduction in traffic.

A full summary of the legislation from the mayor's office in July follows:

SUMMARY OF CONGESTION PRICING LEGISLATION

NYC is authorized to present and implement a detailed congestion pricing plan to address traffic congestion within a zone of severe traffic congestion in Manhattan. Such plan shall include (a) the geographic area to be covered; (b) the proposed dollar amount of any congestion pricing fee; (c) the technology to be used to implement such pricing plan; and (d) the number and scope of exemptions granted from such fee requirements. The Mayor shall submit the traffic mitigation plan by August 1, 2007.

NYC may not impose or collect any fee for traveling into or within designated zone unless the implementation plan has been approved by the State Legislature by March 31, 2008 and signed into law by the Governor, pursuant to a request from the Mayor that the State Legislature consider such plan where such request has been approved by the City Council.

A NYC Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission shall undertake a review and study of the issues related to the implementation of the plan submitted by NYC. It may also review and study other plans to reduce traffic congestion and other related health and safety issues. The Commission shall have 17 members comprised of appointees by State and City officials.

The Commission shall conduct hearings, take testimony and review information and proposals regarding traffic congestion. It shall issue to the Governor, State Legislature, the Mayor and City Council recommendations with respect to the details of implementing the plan submitted by the Mayor and other such proposals. These recommendations shall constitute “the implementation plan”. The implementation plan must provide at least the same level of traffic mitigation, as measured by the 6.3% reduction in average vehicle miles traveled, as proposed in the traffic mitigation plan submitted to US DOT on June 22, 2007.

The Commission shall approve by a majority vote its implementation plan and submit such plan to the Governor, State Legislature, the Mayor and City Council by January 31, 2008. The State Legislature shall consider such implementation plan by March 31, 2008.

By October 1, 2007, the MTA shall submit comments on the Mayor’s plan as well as (a) a description of the additional capital needs required for implementation; (b) proposed utilization of any potential revenue derived from such plan for such capital needs; and (c) the impact of such revenue upon the authority’s capital and operating budgets.

By March 31, 2008 (an 18-month acceleration), the MTA shall submit a capital program for the period covering July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.

Congestion Pricing Breaks Out of Albany Gridlock

Posted by Michael Clancy at 2:27 PM, July 19, 2007

The details are still coming in but it looks like Governor Spitzer and members of the state Assembly and Senate have come to an agreement on Mayor Bloomberg's Congestion Pricing plan.

“This agreement to move forward with congestion pricing marks a critical milestone in our efforts to make PlaNYC a reality, and to provide a better quality of life for us and for future generations of New Yorkers," said Mayor Bloomberg in a statement released this afternoon. "By moving forward in our effort to clean our air and fight congestion, we will help our economy, improve public health and make critical improvements to our public transportation system."

But, as always, the devil will be in the details. As everyone knows, bills often come out unrecognizable after being through a legislative process that is often compared to sausage-making. Commissions are also notorious for coming to an end result that varies wildly from the thing that the commission started with in the first place.

"This agreement also creates a commission made up of representatives of our Administration, our partners in the City Council, Senate, and Assembly and from the Governor’s office to review our plans for implementation," Bloomberg said. "I am certain that through our work with the commission, our traffic plan will be implemented expeditiously."

It's also not clear whether New York will still qualify for $500 million in federal transportation aid that was tied to a Monday deadline.

The rest of the mayor's statement follows:

"This agreement makes clear that delay was unacceptable and the need to protect our environment and fight congestion simply could not wait. We will begin immediately to prepare for the installation of needed equipment to make our traffic plan a reality. "

“This agreement is a victory for the broad coalition of environmental and environmental justice groups, transit and public health advocates, organized labor and civic leaders who worked tirelessly for years to make real and important progress for our environment and our mass transit system. I also want to congratulate the leaders of both houses of the Legislature and the Governor for their support for this key element of PlaNYC and their commitment to moving it forward. We will continue to work together to access the federal funds that are available. Certainly there will be discussion of the details of various components of our plan, but together we have made a commitment to a greener, healthier and more livable New York.”