DMI On Congestion Pricing
If you missed it, and want to review live blogging of the DMI meeting on congestion-pricing click here The live blog isn’t a transcript, but it catches most of the highlights. The brightest spot: NYC Central Labor Council Director Ed Ott compares good sex with good outcomes of the congestion pricing debate: No one agrees on what it is but it’s what you do up front that counts. He wants mass transit improvements especially many more buses up front.
Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron’s presentation seemed clear, but curiously flat. In the question period, she pointed to my personal bugbear – the potential unfairness of the fees on lower income people. She said that, in London, some of the fee proceeds were used to provide free public transit for young, old and, perhaps in the future the poor. In that, all of the panelist agreed: we’re at the beginning of needed discussion and that the Mayor’s plaNYC 2030 is a first step. I'm convinced.
Mr. Ott and Council Member Eric Gioia made, to my mind, the most important point -- and one that I previously didn't get: we are already paying for congestion but in insane and unplanned ways. Mr. Gioia told the story of his family’s florist shop on Roosevelt Ave (Queens) which, because of the delays and costs can no longer profitable deliver to Manhattan. Both He and Mr. Ott recounted the present adverse impacts on residents who drive through neighborhoods of Brooklyn & Queens to dodge the East River and Hudson tolls (Interestingly, while Brooklyn Council Members Yassky and Barron were there, I saw no one from the Bronx or Staten Island and no state legislators.).
Council Transportation Chair Liu pointed out that small businesses are already taxed through parking fines for deliveries into the central business district and that listening to their needs and to the needs of transit-starved outer-borough commuters was essential for the success of traffic planning. Everyone on the panel suggested that people who drive were making a rational choice based on the options available to them and that a successful plan would have to take their needs into account.
For Sewall Chan's post at the Empire Zone go here
Scott Stringer’s thoughts of Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal are, of all places, in the NY Post He, too, sees the key issues: parking control, fairness and open debate.
Of course, in the spirit of openness, the Mayor's draft bill is still, weeks later, secret. Queens State Senator John Sabini, who, like the rest of us is still in the dark on Mr. Bloomberg's specifics complained about the credit for using the toll bridges which would effectively lower the cost for suburban communters. He pointed out that "market rate" parking in congested areas might well have the same effect as congestion pricing. Senator Sabini said his mail was running 50-50 on the issue, so keep those cards and letters coming folks.
This bill must fail
Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to create a "congestion pricing" plan must not pass.
I was at the DMI forum. It was amazing how much Eric Gioia and Ed Ott said without actually saying anything. The only real comment was John Liu's statement that before anything is put in place we should substantially expand mass transit alternatives.
I'm not against congestion pricing; I am merely against passing something now, without fully examining the plan as it (theoretically) exists -- or its alternatives.
Traffic entering lower and midtown Manhattan is at its lowest point in a decade. According to the 2005 Status Report by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), congestion factors include, "A roadway and transit system geared primarily toward travel into and out of the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD) while demand has grown for reverse commutation and intra-suburban transportation capacity."
They do not mention an increase in cars and trucks moving into the CBD.
I have long believed that we should make it more difficult and expensive to drive a car into Manhattan, while simultaneously making it easier and cheaper to take mass transit. For that reason, I view congestion pricing with a willing eye.
But there is no rush. And so far, there has been no real debate.
Let's take a couple of years to study the situation, consider alternatives. For instance, tolls on East River bridges, and higher tolls on the other bridges and tunnels, could fund a tremendous expansion of mass transit alternatives.
Mayor Bloomberg's plan should not be passed -- at least for now.
I agree that the lack of concrete discussion
has been one of the more irritating parts of the Bloomberg PlaN2030. Mr. Bloomberg's presentation of the congestion pricing plan and the Mayoral controlled dedicated fund as a "fait accompli" has been, in my view, one of the more irritating pieces of "steamroller" politics. So, none of us really know for what precise proposal approval is sought.
How this has played out in practice has been that there have been discussions between the Mayor and the Governor about the proposal but none among and between stakeholders (except for public meetings like DMI's). Because of the secrecy, we (or I at least) do not know what elements of the plan are proposed to be passed now. (Do you?).
My guess is that what's required is enabling legislation authorizing the City to establish a congestion pricing scheme. That would allow the City/State to apply for US DOT grants to start the process -- which I'm guessing should involve assessment of environmental, economic and social consequences of alternative traffic control schemes. Do you know?
If my guess is correct, then -- in my view -- some form of enabling legislation could and should be passed now. How or whether NYC would or could get such a program in place could be left for a later day. Properly crafted, such legislation would require the City and State to revisit the issue when concrete elements of the plan and alternatives had been more carefully studied.