Agnello che sono, I suspect that NYC pols know all about Machiavelli.

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.

Some of Komanoff's explanations for the congestion pricing failure are valid. But I think he let the general public off the hook. Having just received a posting about a truckers' protest over high fuel prices, and hearing repeated complaints about high gasoline prices, all blamed on the rapacious oil companies (which are in fact raking in profits because Americans won't curb their oil appetite voluntarily), it is clear that Americans care little about the environment and  want cheap energy and cheap goods, whatever the cost. Nothing but a real depression will give them a wake-up call. No political leader will stick her neck out to support something like carbon taxes, much less congestion fees. We are stuck on the same suicidal page as China and India because higher energy and goods prices will put the brakes on the lethal growth economy and overconsumption. In the end, growth trumps not just sanity but survival. The global warming apocalypse,  if we are lucky, will come sooner rather than later. That' s all folks!

What's the next move of anti-congestion advocates? How about working to add tolls on the East River bridges? The Hudson River crossings weren't going to add much revenue and deterrence anyway, since Bloomberg plan anyway was going to refund most of the Jersey bridge tolls to drivers. That just leaves unmolested the drivers coming in through FDR and Hudson Pkway, or city streets. OK it's not perfect, but it might be easier to get done politically....

Did London need to ask anybody before they implemented their congestion pricing?  Why did NYC have to go to Albany anyway? -- this is an informational question partly, it always amazed me while living in NYC that NYC had to go to Albany for all kinds of approvals.  Maybe congestion pricing only happens in cities that have control over their own streets.

And why was more transit funding from the Federal Government dependent on congestion pricing?

There's much to be said for Komanoff's list, but let me add another item.  When the MTA voted to increase fares for subway and bus riders in December 2007, it promised to make mass transit life a bit easier by adding more frequent service on several subway lines, creating a new bus line from the Lower East Side and extending Manhattan-bound Brooklyn buses.

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!

After working with Mr. Komanoff for years on issues as varied as closing Indian Point, my authorship of New York's Clean Air Act, Environmental Bond Act and most recently my efforts to enact a carbon tax in New York, it was interesting to read his analysis of my record and persona.  The many principled and practical reasons that the Mayor's plan failed should be examined,  including its evisceration of SEQRA, a precedent that will surely come back to haunt us.  Mr. Komanoff did leave one fundamental reason for the failure off his list. The repeated contemptuous and ad hominem attacks on those who did not support congestion pricing backfired and caused many legislators to believe that vitriol and threats were the tools of those who would not reason and debate.  The Mayor, and many of his allies, consistently refuse to recognize that people who oppose congestion pricing can do so because they believe that pricing mechanisms are not the way to solve social problems, and that ability-to-pay should not govern access to public places.  Our objections are principled and deeply felt, even if we are wrong.  As for the name-calling and other personal attacks, they diminish the public debate and, perhaps, those who engage in them.  So, for the record, as to the charges of being counterfactual, glib and savvy, an author of faux-populist screeds, and being impervious to reason,...not guilty. Surely we can disagree on important issues  without attacking each others' motives.  We'll see.

Richard Brodsky

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?

The Assemblyman has asked me to respond to your two questions.

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

...and perhaps Charles could answer this better, or point to past writing, but perhaps there are other ways to reduce congestion? (that hopefully would not involve the state): do a "Netherlands" and make certain streets (Broadway?) car-free on Sundays and available for bikes; a car-free 42nd street; expand bike lanes (is there one on 9th avenue now) with barriers -- I'm sure you've thought of many more.  

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.

my original reaction to the news was that NYC should seceed from New York.  But yeah, I know...

 Mr. Komanoff's first bullet is not true.  The bill did not provide for a pilot.  Congestion pricing would have been a permanent program.  Congestion pricing approved prior to an enviornmental analysis is a terrible precedent to set.  

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