The New York Times informs that New York City will receive $354 million from the Federal government to implement the mayor's congestion pricing scheme. That's a drop in the bucket of our annual ten billion deficit vis-à-vis the Federal government - that being the difference between what New Yorkers pay and what gets spent here - but a step in the right direction.

The United States Department of Transportation announced today that it has allocated $354 million to help Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg finance his plan to reduce traffic in Manhattan by charging tolls to drivers entering the busiest parts of the borough.

The announcement, by Mary E. Peters, the secretary of transportation, is a major lift for the mayor, and is likely to increase pressure on legislative leaders who have balked at the plan to let the city move forward. Ms. Peters said that the city would receive $1.6 million initially, but that the State Legislature must assent to the plan within 90 days of convening — roughly by the end of March 2008 —before the city can receive the balance.

Leaving aside the disturbing idea that this plan requires action by the state legislature - never a good thing - the congestion pricing plan is good Progressive policy. The simple fact is that car ownership is heavily subsidized by the state over other forms of transportation, including mass transit, simply by the maintenance of the infrastructure that makes driving a car possible. It starts with the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, tunnels, and so on; should include the cost of police units that regulate traffic and investigate infractions of traffic rules; the vast amount of public space given over exclusively to cars, including most freeways, roads, and parking spaces; continues through the Department of Motor Vehicles; and needs to include the massive environmental and health costs associated with the automobile. In economic theory, the totality of public subsidies for automobiles is a classic market distortion.

The State Legislature has created a 17-member commission that it asked to evaluate the mayor’s congestion pricing plan and make recommendations. The $354 million that the federal government has allocated falls short of the $536 million that Mr. Bloomberg requested, but exceeds the $200 million that the Legislature set as a minimum commitment from the federal government for its commission to proceed.

Ms. Peters said that so long as the commission approves a traffic plan that meets the same “performance objectives” as the mayor’s original plan, the city would receive the balance of the money. At a news conference this morning, Ms. Peters said that the federal government supported Mayor Bloomberg’s plan because it was “as brass and bold as New York City itself.”

“The average New York commuter now spends 49 hours stuck in traffic every year, up from 18 hours in 1982,” she said. “While some may be content to accept growing gridlock as a way of life, Mayor Bloomberg is not going to let traffic rob the Big Apple.

“New Yorkers,” she added, “must understand that we must stop relying on yesterday’s ideas to fight today’s traffic jams.”

It will be interesting to see whether or not the legislature, with its justified reputation as the place where good ideas go to die, will act on the Federal proposal. Unfortunately, the dynamics of City versus everyone else are already in play; Democratic Long Island Senator Craig Johnson sent out an email on August 7th, announcing his opposition to the congestion pricing proposal.

It is clear to me that congestion pricing is a commuter tax that is disguised as a green initiative. Unfortunately this plan is neither green, nor innovative.

Last week, a vote was held to put together a commission to "examine" this concept.

I voted against it. Nassau's Republican senators, in a rare break from their leader, Senator Joseph L. Bruno, joined me in opposition.

Johnson goes on to note:

Already, the MTA has made it clear that they intend to raise fares on trains, subways and buses.
And not just this year, but for the foreseeable future. Given the option of an expensive commute either way, many people will simply continue to drive, and begrudgingly pay yet another tax.

If I am wrong, and everyone starts taking the LIRR, this would also prove problematic. Many of our train stations simply do not have the parking facilities to accommodate these new riders, forcing many vehicles into surrounding neighborhoods in the search for street parking.

The answer to Johnson's concerns, which are valid, is to increase the capacity of mass transit between the business district and the commuter belt.

Congestion pricing could be transformative of the way New Yorkers travel in the City. Let's hope the people in charge get it right.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |