Albany strikes again: congestion pricing -- the smartest urban-transportation idea since the subway -- has been buried by the professional morticians of the New York State legislature, led by Chief Ghoul Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
As previously reported, the pricing plan, proposed a year ago by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and subsequently improved by a 17-member state-mandated commission, would have charged an $8 entry fee on cars driven into Manhattan's central business district (CBD) during 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. on weekdays. Benefits included an annual $500 million revenue stream for mass transit (sufficient to bond at least $5 billion in capital improvements), a solid if unspectacular drop in traffic gridlock and pollution, and, perhaps most significantly, a first step toward knocking the automobile off its privileged perch atop the New York street pyramid. Not to mention establishing the principle that safeguarding "the commons" -- our air, water and public space -- requires that we exact from ourselves a commensurate price for uses that damage or deplete it.
Congestion pricing was backed by an unusually broad coalition of labor, business, enviros (the full spectrum from EJ to Big Green) and civic associations. Yet neither this broad-spectrum support nor the plan's extraordinary vetting over the past 12 months deterred legislators from both parties from citing "unanswered questions" and assailing bogus inequities.
Calling today "a sad day for New Yorkers and New York City" and noting federal support for congestion pricing, Mayor Bloomberg blasted the legislature, stating that, "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."
With so much going for it, what killed the plan? There will be time later for sober postmortems, but for now, here's my shoot-from-the-hip Top 10 list of what felled congestion pricing in NYC:
10. Misplaced emphasis on climate: Hitching congestion pricing to climate protection, even in part, was disingenuous. The anticipated traffic reductions would have eliminated no more than 1% of NYC's CO2. The emphasis should have been on cutting the scourge of traffic, whose theft of time, sanity, and safety from New Yorkers outweighs the climate damage from CBD-bound tailpipes by a couple of orders of magnitude.
9. Brodsky: The stream of counterfactual arguments from Richard Brodsky, a glib but savvy Democratic Assemblymember from suburban Westchester, was almost farcical. But his faux-populist screeds had an impact on public opinion. Bloomberg should have sat down with Brodsky, if only to be able to say afterwards that congestion pricing's opponents were impervious to reason.
8. Spitzer fiasco: The stunning demise of "Client 9" last month didn't just sabotage Bloomberg's Albany strategy. It sucked huge amounts of oxygen out of the legislative room just when the debate needed to begin in earnest.
7. Tepid Manhattan: Many city and state reps from Manhattan -- where fewer than one-quarter of households own a car -- tendered only lukewarm support, if that. Their fence-straddling made it harder to win support in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.
6. Crane collapse: A spectacular construction accident in mid-March destroyed a townhouse and killed seven people on Manhattan's East Side, focusing public attention -- and outrage -- over unbridled development, and reinforcing the rap on congestion pricing as a Bloombergian tool to remove the poor and weak from the city.
5. Jersey blues: Supporters never fielded a convincing answer to the exaggerated complaint that the toll rate structure would let drivers crossing the Hudson River into Manhattan get off scot-free. A last-minute deal to invest bi-state Port Authority tolls in NYC transit provoked threats of a lawsuit, undermining the pricing bill's credibility in the crucial final days.
4. Misplaced emphasis on Manhattan: Most of the reduction in traffic from congestion pricing would have taken place "upstream" of the charging zone. Inexplicably, City Hall underplayed this, feeding the perception that the benefits would be confined to Manhattan, and making it harder for outer-borough reps to line up in support.
3. Bloomberg: The mayor gets credit for a visionary idea but a failing grade for execution. The truism that New York politics demands personal engagement applied in spades to this mayor and this plan, both of which have their imperious sides. A groundswell of support to pull along a majority of legislators would have required far more engagement than Mayor Bloomberg offered.
2. Too few benefits: The plan's promised benefits seemed surprisingly diffuse. Perhaps paradoxically, a steeper congestion fee, say $12, used to pay for free transit buses citywide, would have generated more grassroots support without inciting much more opposition.
1. Machiavelli's dictum: "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand," Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, "than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things ... the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new." When pricing advocates return with a new plan -- perhaps a variant of the Kheel Plan -- we will do well to take this dictum to heart.
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Threaded
caniscandida Posted 7:38 pm
07 Apr 2008
Not from reading him, but intuitively, and through experience.
Numbers 7 and 4 are most important, IMHO. This deal should have been designed and sold so as to benefit the entire metropolitan area.
As for Number 3: I would not wish to blame Michael Bloomberg too strongly. But it is a lesson for all of us, going into November and beyond: the politician may be willing and capable, but there has to be a serious negotiation/education/enlightenment/epiphany between him/her and his/her advisors.
As for Number 5: NYC's mistrust of New Jersey is positively medievaloid, sort of like the traditional hostility between Florence and Siena. In fact, some New Jersey thinkers are the country's leaders on some green issues, and we New Yorkers should shut up and listen for a change, instead of making fun of their haircuts and their Barcalounges.
I do not see that 6 and 8, the crane collapse and Client 9, had much to do with anything.
But, whatever we may think about Spitzer's downfall (to say nothing about the room rates he was willing to put out), it is perhaps not all that meaningful, but anyway not all that promising, that David Paterson did not thrust himself into this business and take charge.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 11:16 pm
07 Apr 2008
Mr. Silver does it again
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08tue2.html?_r= ...
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:44 pm
07 Apr 2008
The top ten list is helpful, though, and should act as a list of pointers for other cities or future leaders of NYS when they get serious on this topic.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 12:14 am
08 Apr 2008
Permalink
pliberman Posted 12:16 am
08 Apr 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:13 am
08 Apr 2008
And why was more transit funding from the Federal Government dependent on congestion pricing?
Permalink
The Groovy Mind Posted 1:16 am
08 Apr 2008
no, really, i think you're right on, Charles, for the reasons why the pricing plan didn't go through. maybe if public transport like the lirr were more reliable, people would be more willing to relinquish their cars. i know, i'm dreaming!
The Groovy Mind
Make a difference with your groovy mind!
Permalink
sindark Posted 1:33 am
08 Apr 2008
Furthermore, the de-emphasizing of private cars as a mode of transport might help to guide future infrastructure development towards more sustainable options.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
NancyatSallan Posted 5:10 am
08 Apr 2008
But just last month, the MTA reneged on these commitments. The timing could not have been worse for shredding the credibility of the Mayor's promise to improve mass transit at the cost of paying a congestion pricing fee. What was the MTA thinking!
Permalink
ktsj1981 Posted 7:00 am
08 Apr 2008
Richard Brodsky
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:16 am
08 Apr 2008
Did you propose, or do you see, any other ways to cut down on car use in NYC, outside of congestion pricing?
Is there some other way for NYC to get the matching funds for mass transit from the Federal government, other than congestion pricing?
Permalink
ktsj1981 Posted 7:43 am
08 Apr 2008
The Assemblyman has proposed legislation (A.10198) to crack down on traffic violations (block-the-box, illegal parking), reduce the illegal use of parking placards, and raise fares on both taxis and black cars (the largest source of congestion) to raise funds and encourage the use of public transportation. He also supports "the millionares tax" which would raise significant funds for transporation and he's proposed a carbon tax. These measures will significantly reduce congestion and raise money for transporation without adding another burden to the middle class.
The guarantee of federal funding is a myth. If you look at the MOU, it states that the federal government is not legally bound to give New York the $354 million, even with the passage of congestion pricing. Federal funding should always be applied for, but should not be the sole reason to pass flawed legislation.
Best Wishes,
Christopher Valens
Communications Director
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky
Permalink
Charles Komanoff Posted 7:45 am
08 Apr 2008
The congestion pricing bill specified a 3-year pilot project and thus would not have undermined SEQRA (the State Environmental Quality Review Act).
I and other bill proponents agree w/ Mr. Brodsky that ability to pay should never determine access to public spaces. Motor vehicle access to hyper-congested areas is an altogether different matter. Where each additional vehicle creates an estimated $40 in delay costs (my calculation), an $8 per-vehicle charge will expand, not constrict, public access by improving bus speeds, enhancing cycling and walking, and funding transit.
I have held Mr. Brodsky in high regard during his entire career (we are contemporaries). While he is entitled to his objections to congestion pricing on asserted grounds of principle, he must expect pointed rebuttal when his claims are patently false, e.g., his repeated insistence that congestion pricing in NYC would be regressive. Mr. Brodsky's Manhattan-bound drive-to-work constituents earn on average $176,231 annually -- the highest of any New York county in the metropolitan area, according to Transportation Alternatives. A more comprehensive rebuttal on this point is here.
No one is attacking Mr. Brodsky's motives. As for name-calling, I advertised up front that my post was shoot-from-the-hip. Having prevailed over congestion pricing advocates, Brodsky could absorb a few barbs from the vanquished, no?
Charles
http://www.komanoff.net
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:10 am
08 Apr 2008
While I appreciate Mr. Brodsky's anti-congestion suggestions, they don't seem to me to be leading toward a substantial de-automobile-ification of, at least, parts of midtown (and raising taxi fares can hit middle class people also), so it seems to me that we need to think "outside the box" a little more.
Permalink
Charles Komanoff Posted 11:16 am
08 Apr 2008
To Jon Rynn and Brodsky Staffer Chris Valens -- Brodsky's "ideas" for cutting traffic are the same old same old. Parking crackdown? Pu-leeze, it'll gore Brodsky's beleaguered drivers but expensively, leaving little or no net revenue. Stop "placard abuse"? By all means, but the abuse is mostly localized, and new trips attracted by the freed-up spaces will quickly fill up the roads. Raise fees on taxis and livery cars? Of course, but the revenues are a drop in the bucket. A carbon tax? Hey, I co-founded and co-direct the Carbon Tax Center, but, as I tried to tell Brodsky last year, a carbon tax isn't the right tool for the job. To cut traffic in (and into) Manhattan, charge a fee to drive into Manhattan -- as London and Stockholm now do successfully. Duh ... why must we keep arguing this? Jon, as for your bike lane etc. ideas, they're all good, but politically they can happen on a large scale only after (or alongside) cutting traffic demand. You also asked why Albany had to approve, and what was the federal funds tie-in? No time to elaborate, sorry, but trust me, that's the universe we operate in.
Sindark -- I meant to say that the CO2 reductions from congestion pricing are politically irrelevant. For my "two orders of magnitude" figure, see the Kheel Report, pp. 30-31.
pliberman -- Non-tolled vehicles entering the CBD from the North 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. now outnumber those entering via the East River (200,000 to 160,000). And E. Riv tolls alone are politically a non-starter due to the same "geographical parity" canard I cited in my "Jersey Blues" point (#5).
The rest of you (especially Nancy & Lorna, and most of Caniscandida -- Bravo!
PS -- If Brodsky wants a sample of real invective, he should read Michael J. Smith's takedown of "stercoraceous Assembly Democrats," Dems to NYC: Drop Dead.
Charles
http://www.komanoff.net
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:33 am
08 Apr 2008
Permalink
ktsj1981 Posted 2:25 am
09 Apr 2008
Of course congestion pricing is regressive. To sight Mr. Komanoff's examples, Mr. Brodsky's constituents, with a larger income, were largely excused from paying the congestion fee.
Readers will decide for themselves if Mr. Komanoff attacked Mr. Brodsky personally.
Best Wishes,
Christopher Valens
Communications Director
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky
Permalink
Charles Komanoff Posted 6:44 am
09 Apr 2008
Hello? Here's what the City's premier transportation statistician, Bruce Schaller, found in his comprehensive 2007 report on NYC travel data, City in Flux:
"Auto commuters have higher incomes than transit riders.
"Among Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island residents who work in Manhattan, auto commuters earn 32% more than subway commuters and 15% more than bus commuters. [2000 Census data]
"Auto commuters living in Manhattan earn 20% more than bus commuters and 18% more than subway commuters.
"Similar earnings gaps are seen among residents of outlying areas of the outer boroughs.
"Among commuters from outlying parts of the city that lack direct subway access, auto commuters earn 35% more than do subway commuters."
When did c.p. opponents decide that facts don't matter?
Friends, I'm trying to treat Brodsky relationally -- he's a political force in NY State, and clearly any future initiative to fund transit and reclaim city streets from cars will have to bring him on board. But there needs to be some regard for the facts, no?
As for Brodsky's aide's other canard, "Congestion pricing approved prior to an environmental analysis is a terrible precedent." Folks, the 17-member Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission (on which Brodsky served) did an extraordinary amount of careful environmental review in the past six months. Commission staff fully vetted the "official" plan and exhaustively analyzed alternatives. It's hard to imagine what additional review might have been necessary, and what further facts it could have provided (let alone whether Mr. Brodsky would have considered them).
No, the "environmental review" argument is just another fig leaf with which opponents of congestion pricing can cloak their decision to continue giving away the most precious resource in NYC -- our streetscape -- to drivers, and to condemn another generation of New Yorkers to incessant, damaging, spirit-destroying traffic.
Charles
http://www.komanoff.net
Permalink