Mayor Bloomberg' congestion pricing plan, tabled indefinitely in Albany, might have been been good for the environment, but it definitely would have been great for the City's treasury: on top of the $354 million in Federal funds the mayor anticipated if the plan passed, there were all those eight-dollar commuter fees -- not to mention the fines, penalties, and interest the City could expect to charge non-compliant, delinquent, and confused motorists.

But that's over for the moment, so the Mayor is looking at other revenue streams, perhaps in other than obvious ways.

On Friday he told a caller to his WOR-AM radio show that he's still interested in putting a four-dollar toll on bridge traffic entering Manhattan, reports the New York Daily News. The State's Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission predicted an $859 million payday from such tolls. While the Mayor clearly wants to resurrect congestion pricing, he may be signaling that he's willing to take half a loaf, at least for now.

That may not be all he's looking for. The New York Sun reports that Bloomberg sent a letter this weekend to U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Port Authority executive director Christopher Ward, asking for their assistance in developing a "pilot program" to auction off landing slots at LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Newark airports:

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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."

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:

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.”