I started to read your website’s laundry list. Overall you keep on making suggestions on how to increase the available road space. This will never cure congestion because demand will just rise to meet the increased supply of road space. I gave a more complete description on comment 32 here
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/15/weiner-on-the-environment-big-talk-small-stick/#comments

How can you limit the overall demand for road space?

Bart’s question about the role of the state in the city’s transportation can be answered by others on this blog far better than I, and I hope it will. Here’s my simplified version: the state inserts itself primarily through the authorities (Port Authority, MTA, Triborough Bridge & Tunnel etc) which are quasi-governmental creatures of the state, created mainly in order to take advantage of bonds for funding and protection from volatile political interference. It has advantages and disadvantages. The authorities controlled the revenue – e.g., bridge and tunnel tolls – that was used to bail out mass transit with the merger of the MTA and TBTA. The state’s role has increased as it has administered federal transportation funds. Finally, with the creation of the MPO’s (metropolitan transportation organizations, NY created one whose membership and structure preserves much state control (NYMTC). So here we are with a system in which the state controls our mass transit (intra-urban and regional), most of our entry points, and major arterials (for an analysis of the jurisdiction of the city’s parkways, see the study by Sam Schwartz commissioned by the Henry Hudson Parkway Task Force.)

NYC also lost significant autonomy during its period of near-bankruptcy, which it is still working to recapture. Mayor Bloomberg has taken on the State in education and other areas. I think what he is doing with transportation is driven by the same larger goal.

Now I hope someone more knowledgeable will fill this out..

It’s embarrassing for the city and state to have missed the deadline by a few days, but it doesn’t mean the date was mischievous or arbitrary. The deadline did achieve its aim of forcing that sluggish body to act within a few days of whatever schedule the DOT has for its funds. I’m pleasantly surprised that the federal government is being so cooperative with the state’s extended, uninformed gift horse mouth looking.

You are right that a commuter on the Midtown Tunnel or the Battery Tunnel would pay no additional fees since the congestion charge of $8 is subtracted from the toll (which is $8 both directions with EZ Pass). Those commuters would have no incentive to not drive, since the current cost does not bother them.

But this plan would still be a tremendous benefit to traffic citywide since it will discourage people from directing themselves to the 4 free bridges. The bridges and tunnels connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens will effectively all charge the same amount during CP’s time. If you are coming from SI or South Brooklyn and you are headed to Manhattan you are more likely to use the 2 left lanes of the Gowanus and head directly for the BBT instead of causing more congestion for the folks who have to take the BQE towards the Queens or Bronx.

If you are coming from LI, CP will give you more incentive to stay on the LIE or GCP and head for the Midtown Tunnel or the Triboro and not try to clog up Van Dam Street on their way to the Queensboro Bridge.

I know people who travel between Queens and the Bronx by way of Manhattan who take the Queensboro Bridge, surface streets, FDR Drive, and Willis/3rd Ave bridges to avoid the toll on the Triboro. With CP in place, these drivers have no incentive to go into Manhattan at all. They would head for the Triboro, Whitestone, or Throgs Neck instead.

Traveling from Queens to NJ? By way of Triboro, Major Deegan, and GWB – $4 one-way. By way of BQE, Gowanus, Verrazano Bridge and SIE – $8 (in that direction). By way of the crowded Manhattan CBD via the 4 free bridges and the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels — completely free. CP will change that and get rid of this unnecessary traffic from the streets of Manhattan.

In short, even if the vast majority of drivers continue to drive to Manhattan with CP in place, those drivers have no incentive to go out of their way for a free bridge. They will take the most direct way and thus be driving less. And many who have no destination in Manhattan will be encouraged to drive around Manhattan instead of driving through Manhattan.

If anyone comes out of this badly, I’m betting that it will be New Jersey. NJ has no voice in this, and because of that drivers from there might be hit hard.

Eric, the Goldman deal is worth it. Would you rather have them pack up and move to Jersey or Connecticut? The amount of taxes they generate is so large you would feel the impact, if they left, in billions lost in tax revenue. Take a look at UBS, who has all of their trading in Stamford because of the lower taxes there. And Morgan Stanley moved thousands of employees to White Plains post-9/11. Goldman didn’t necessarily have to stay in Manhattan, but now that they have we’re getting more back in tax revenue than we gave them in late 2001.

But I do agree about Vanderbilt Yards. Ratner should have paid more. While opening the bidding would bring in more revenue, don’t expect that the highest bidder would build something more to scale. It would probably be just as large, if not larger, in order to recoup their investment.

If you really believe the taxpayers are coming out ahead in the Goldman Sachs deal, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority has a bridge or two to sell you.

Forget Goldman, though. How about we just re-open the bidding on the Vanderbilt Railyards, which were awarded to low-bidder Bruce Ratner for less than half of the MTA’s own appraisal? That’s a direct forfeiture of transit money, by an agency that’s facing tens of BILLIONS of budget shortfall.

As for this agreement, I’ll believe Congestion Pricing when the first $8 is deducted from my E-Z Pass account. New York State has the most dysfunctional government in the nation, so pardon me if I’m lacking faith in their actually implementing a good program – or any program. And has anyone reported what Shelly Silver’s cut is? You can be certain that he extracted a large price for allowing this to move forward. And if we’re counting on Chris Quinn and Joe Bruno to do the right thing, we may as well fold up our tents now.

Doc brings up a great point in #10, too. Wasn’t the deadline for the Fed money this past Monday? Or was it not really a deadline?

Under the original plan, SI commuters would have gotten credit for 1/2 the Verr. fare and the Battery Tunnel fare . . . thus paid $0 congestion pricing fee!

NJ commuters using the Lincoln & Holland would end up paying an extra $2, which is not enough to change virtually anyone’s behavior.

Both of those formulas need to be jacked up to make a difference. I have a car, and as much as I hate paying tolls (with a passion) the costs of driving need to increase to reflect the negative externalities of personal auto travel.

We also need to work on a regional transit plan, that will bring 24-hour service to SI and more of Northern NJ. We need a comprehensive transit system which presents a clear and better alternative to driving for a vast majority of people.

Now to get back on topic: the least I can say is that it’s a step in the right direction. Maybe not the step I was hoping for, but it’s a step. I think in the end we’ll see a congestion pricing program that will be somewhat along the lines of what was previously proposed, but possibly with discounted rates for city residents who live outside of the zone. The purpose of the commission is to find a politically feasible solution, not necessarily the best. I just hope that we’re still eligible for federal funds.

I know a lot of people didn’t like Bloomberg’s trying to muscle his original proposal through, but there’s one advantage to more limited input: a lot of pols, I bet, would secretly like CP to go through as long as they could say it was the other guy who did it.