Can You Stand Even More Congestion Pricing? 2nd Update, Tues.
In the great meeting room of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Mayor Bloomberg and the chairs of many NYS Assembly Committees engaged in a snappish battle of wits in which the citizens were losers. Richard Brodsky and Denny Farrell scored imaginary talking points off the Mayor. Even if you have a horse in this race (and I do), it was difficult to declare a winner. (After the jump, a possible fatal flaw in Mr. Bloomberg's plan and a chance to lobby in Albany if you support it.)
UPDATE: Rep. Joseph Crowley, chair of the Queens Democratic Party, (whose district includes a portion of the Bronx) endorsed the Congestion Pricing Proposal. In a complete coincidence, Mayor Bloomberg promised to pay for two new Queens LIRR stations (and two Bronx Metro North Stations).
2nd UPDATE TUESDAY: Sheldon Silver is not convinced here and here .
The Mayor, of course, knew the details of the proposal and no one else did. The very long bill, introduced in the Senate only a few hours before, as it turns out, is just a bargaining chip. So, while the Assembly members sounded smart, they couldn't compete. It was as though the Assembly members were playing poker blindfolded. The odd thing was that Mr. Bloomberg was as snappish as the Assembly members and he was the one trying to force them to buy a pig in a poke (Mind you, a very nice pig, in my opinion -- but you can't see it.)
The Assembly Members had one very big surprise from the Mayor's presentation. The Mayor says that his congestion pricing proposal is a three-year pilot. It's an experiment. No final decision has been made about congestion pricing. To those of you who remember environmental law, a bell should now be ringing. If no final decision has been made, or will be made until the data from the "pilot" (paid for, Mr Bloomberg hopes, by a $500 Million challenge grant from the US Dept. of Transportation) no environmental impact statement or analysis is required. The point of the EIS is to inform the decision maker before a final action.
Thus, the proposal, claimed to be temporary, would expire at the end of three years unless reauthorized. (The current bill says nothing of this). Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff suggested the program would throw off $400 Million per year for capital improvements for mass transit. Can you imagine a legislator voting to cut off a money spigot that big?
I think this could be a fatal legal flaw. Buying all the equipment and running the program for three years, under these circumstances, seems to me to be a pretty final action. On the merits, it seems to me, both state and federal law require environmental impact analysis before going ahead. Every argument in favor of this proposal promotes its environmental benefits. But no assessment of the environmental costs and benefits has been done. A challenge to the Bloomberg proposal is not a slam-dunk but could win.
A smaller surprise was that our friends at the Drum Major Institute were cast, by the Mayor, in a major supporting role. Over and over again he touted their report which is here.They found that congestion pricing would be good for middle-class New Yorkers. Each time Mr. Brodsky brought up the regressive character of the plan, Mr. Bloomberg hit him with the DMI. After his testimony, the Mayor held a press conference with new favorite friends Scott Stringer and Betsy Gotbaum, surrounded by green t-shirted supporters. It was a wonderful sight.
The Apollo Alliance, a labor, community, environmental alliance has scheduled a lobby trip to Albany on behalf of Mr. Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan.
Campaign For New York's Future - State Capital Advocacy Day (Carry the campaign's message to Albany and educate legislators on PlaNYC)
Tuesday, June 12th, 2007
Details: Buses will leave for Albany early, the morning of June 12th. Details will be sent in a follow-up email.
To RSVP, call: Yating Liu (212.764.3878 ext. 245) or Edymari De Leon (212.764.4298)
or click here
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Congestion pricing | Transportation | Denny Farrell | Drum Major Institute | Environmental Defense | Michael Bloomberg | Richard Brodsky | Transportation Alternatives
» Daniel Millstone's blog | email this blog | printer friendly version | send to friend | 1253 reads
We Disagree. I'm for it.
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 10 June 2007 - 3:04pm.
Congestion pricing as proposed by the Mayor has two main parts: traffic control (projected 110,000 or so fewer vehicles entering Manhattan per day) and capital funding for mass transit($400 million/year). Mr. Bloomberg's proposal is the first serious one on the table. Until now, lobbying by breathers, bikers, walkers has had no effect. It should be adopted because it starts the process of solving those two related crises.
Because he proposed Congestion Pricing in the context of a 500 or so million dollar challenge grant application to the US Dept. of Transportation, Mayor Bloomberg's plan comes with an unusual 0 price tag for the early years. Those, like Central Labor Council chair Ed Ott, who demanded mass transit for under served areas first, got their wish under the plan. The USDOT grant buys express bus and ferry service to the most under served areas of NYC.
The plan could the plan be better. There are still battles to be fought. The concerns of those who may be adversely affected -- like those in neighborhoods adjacent to the zone -- must be addressed. On this, fairly concrete promises were made by the Mayor, Friday.
If the legislature rejects the plan, the burden of mass transit capital construction falls directly on our electeds in Albany at a time during which operating costs threaten higher fares. Further, capital needs are underfunded. The portion of the 2nd Ave. subway which would serve Sheldon Silver district is not paid for; this proposal could pay for it and a lot more.
I agree the rush is unseemly and irrational and smacks of the arrogance and high handedness characteristic of the Bloomberg Administration. When I asked NYCLU director Donna Lieberman if her concerns about the civil liberties and privacy loss issues had been addressed, she said "not at all." Those issues should be addressed and are addressable.
As a matter of style Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Doctoroff are no better listeners than when they tried for the West Side Stadium. As to content, however, it seems to me , this proposal makes serious sense. If we don't take the first step, we're screwing it up, big time.
Too fast
Whether a workable congestion pricing plan can be put together or not (and whether the mayor's plan is workable), no plan should be put into place until it is fully vetted.
Mayor Bloomberg is trying to shove this down our throats before we have a chance to think about it. This scheme is far too complicated to act on without taking the time to consider all the consequences -- and alternatives.
Fortunately, there are a lot of people who agree with this sentiment, many of them in positions of real power.
Congestion pricing? Mabye ... or maybe not. Do it now? Absolutely not!