Biggest Setback: After being approved by an unprecedented civic coalition, the mayor and New York City Council, congestion pricing -- the one policy measure that simultaneously reduces traffic congestion while raising money for mass transit and livable streets -- died in an Albany backroom without even a vote.

Lobbyists of the Year: Walter McCaffrey and the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free (below). It turns out New York City government is controlled by a handful of Queens Democrats, suburban state legislators and the Automobile Club of New York.

How Not to Lobby a State Legislator: Brooklyn State Senator Martin Malave Dilan's car is towed during a congestion pricing meeting with city officials.

Most Sociopathic Elected Official: Bronx State Senator Jeff Klein nearly crushes a cyclist with his black Mercedes and then tells him, "Get your hands off my car, you f*#king a55hole." Unfortunately for Sen. Klein, this particular cyclist happens to run a pretty robust media operation.

Most Disappointing Elected Officials: During the congestion pricing debate, three State Assemblymembers stood out for their enormous potential to exert leadership and their utter inability or unwillingness to do so. Deborah Glick, Joan Millman and Hakeem Jeffries all represent districts that would have overwhelmingly benefited from New York City's congestion pricing plan. Yet, Glick could only find reasons to oppose it. Millman decided she supported it -- two hours after the proposal was killed by her Democratic Assembly colleagues. And Jeffries had the gall to demand increased subway service on the G line three weeks after helping to eliminate the revenue source that might have paid for it. If only New York City were represented in the state Assembly by an aggressive, attentive, self-aggrandizing politician like...

Elected Official of the Year: You've got to hand it to Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky -- he works hard for his constituents and supporters. Unfortunately for New York City's traffic-choked neighborhoods, beleaguered transit riders and asthmatic kids, his constituents are the metropolitan region's wealthiest car commuters and his supporters own a bunch of parking garages in Manhattan. While New York City's legislators rolled over and played dead, Richard Brodsky worked his butt off to make sure that New York City's congestion pricing plan -- a plan approved by the Mayor, City Council and a state commission -- died a quiet death in the Assemly's Democratic conference. Brodsky did incredible damage to New York City in 2008 but he also showed us what effective representation in Albany might look like.

Worst Elected Official: Rochester Assemblyman and transportation committee chairman David Gantt continued his decade-long effort to deny New York City the ability to deploy automated traffic enforcement systems on its streets. He loosened up a little bit though. This year he introduced legislation that would allow counties outside of New York City to use red light cameras -- as long as they purchased the technology from a Swedish firm represented by one of his cronies. Shocking? Not really. Just another day in Albany.

Most Opinions Fewest Solutions Award: From now on, this will be called the Anthony Weiner Award.

Most Moronic Idea From Albany: State Senators Jeff Klein and Eric Adams put on their serious, fighting-for-the-people faces and proposed suspending tolls on New York City bridges and tunnels and giving drivers a $200 gas tax rebate ahead of Memorial Day weekend. Not planning to burn lots of gasoline for your summer holiday? These two have nothing for you.

Last Friday, in a story about the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free stepping up its lobbying efforts, the Daily Politics blog published this gem of a rallying cry from pro-congestion lobbyist Walter McCaffrey:

"You are in the driver's seat. Put the brakes on congestion pricing now before it goes to Albany."

Which means, of course, it's time to launch the Congestion Pricing Populist Soundbite Contest. Paul White at Transportation Alternatives gets us started with the following:

"Diiiiing Dooong. You are in the subway seat. Tell your state legislator not to hold the doors on congestion pricing."

Here's mine: 

"You are walking across the street. Put the brakes on congestion pricing opponents before one of them runs you over in his Buick Skylark."

I'm sure you can do better...

The Daily News reports:

State and city officials are hashing out a plan to ensure congestion pricing money pays for mass transit upgrades -- and mass transit upgrades only, sources said Wednesday.

Under the developing plan, net proceeds from new tolls for motorists entering a large section of Manhattan would be put in a "lock box" administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, sources in City Hall and Gov. Spitzer's office said.

The fund could only be used for transit projects that meet specific criteria, which would be spelled out by state legislation, sources said.

A member of Gov. Spitzer's administration confirmed that Spitzer will include the creation of the MTA account as a line-item in the proposed budget he unveils next week.

At a Congestion Mitigation Commission hearing yesterday at Hunter College (which saw the notable emergence of a pro-pricing coalition of advocates for low-income transit customers), Regional Plan Association President Bob Yaro testified that similar measures have successfully earmarked transit funds for decades.

The MTA's revenues at their bridge and tunnels in excess of operating costs is guaranteed by formula set by the State Legislature for use by the MTA for transit since 1968. Taxes such as the mortgage recording tax, petroleum business tax, corporate franchise tax and sales tax have also been reliably dedicated to transit since the early 1980s. It should not be difficult to establish a mechanism for congestion pricing revenue that would do the same, while requiring the use of the funds by the MTA on the projects agreed to by the MTA and the City.

Yaro also rebutted opponents' claims that the Traffic Commission's alternative pricing plan is worse than the Mayor's because it gives Manhattanites a free ride. Yaro said:

The inclusion of increased metered parking rates and a taxi surcharge within the zone, as well as the elimination of the resident park tax exemption [in the Alternative Plan] ensure that residents of the charging zone pay their share.

As key arguments against pricing are dismantled, and as the MTA and its working-class ridership finally find their collective voice, congestion pricing's impact on neighborhoods just outside the zone remains a focus of the vocal opposition.

Studies of London's congestion pricing plan showed "no adverse impact" or major parking problems on the outskirts of the congestion pricing zone. The Department of Transportation is responding to the park-and-ride concern by putting big resources into a second round of citywide neighborhood parking workshops starting next week. And, of course, Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a major crackdown on government employee parking placard abuse.

The question is whether any of that will be enough for legislators like State Senator George Onorato, who rallied a recent town hall meeting in Astoria, Queens with the cry, "We would be the parking lot for all the Long Island commuters."

Of course, this isn't helping either.

Taking the stump for pricing were Kathryn Wylde of the Partnership for NYC and Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future. Arguing against were Congressman Anthony Weiner of Queens and Walter McCaffrey of the Coalition to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free. The standing-room-only crowd of more than 120 people -- most of whom came from the Upper East Side and East Harlem, judging by the post-debate Q & A -- appeared to favor Weiner and McCaffrey by a noticeable, though not overwhelming, margin. Wylde and O'Loughlin scored their share of applause, but Weiner was the only speaker to draw vocal cheers.

Claiming that "we are buying a pig in a poke," Weiner made several arguments familiar to Streetsblog readers, adding a few rhetorical flourishes worth noting. Among his main points:

• The current plan is "not fair" because suburban drivers from LI and NJ won't pay any fee in addition to the existing tolls on the Hudson River crossings and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel.
• Commercial truck traffic in Midtown is increasing faster than car traffic, so a priority should be placed on mitigating truck congestion.
• The number of people who switch to mass transit because of congestion pricing will impose costs on the transit system that significantly outweigh the revenue pricing will generate.
• Republicans support congestion pricing because it "bolsters the idea that municipalities should pay for their own transportation enhancements," as opposed to the idea that transit improvements should be paid for from a federal pot of gas tax revenue.

Weiner built up this last point quite dramatically, painting congestion pricing as a wedge issue that has played into the hands of "Texas conservatives" by dividing people who share a concern for the environment. "There's a reason that George Bush likes this plan," he said, insisting that "there are smarter and more progressive ways to do this."

Weiner then outlined his own three-point plan in broad strokes, saying he would 1) charge trucks to enter Midtown during peak hours, 2) offer businesses tax incentives to remain open for late-night truck deliveries, and 3) charge private motorists, but only those from outside the five boroughs.

Wylde attacked Weiner's emphasis on trucks, pointing out that only eight percent of the vehicles in the zone below 60th Street are trucks, while 40 percent are private, single-occupancy cars. She also argued that the mayor's plan would not pit people who live in the congestion zone against people from the outer boroughs, because "Manhattan is the magnet that creates excess traffic throughout the region, and reducing traffic below 60th Street will reduce traffic throughout the region." Her repeated references to 60th Street as the northern boundary of the congestion zone may signal that the TCMC will ultimately propose shifting the boundary south from 86th Street.

Also, in response to an East Harlem resident who expressed concern that her asthma-stricken neighborhood would become even more overwhelmed by vertical parking lots, Wylde hinted that the TCMC proposals would pay "very serious attention" to the issue of parking in peripheral districts.

O'Loughlin, in his rebuttal to Weiner, argued that New York can't rely on Congress -- especially representatives from Texas -- to raise the gas tax and set aside sufficient cash to fund the city's transit system. "Just because the Bush administration is willing to give us $354 million doesn't make this a bad idea," he said. He cited support from the Drum Major Institute and the Central Labor Council as evidence of pricing's progressive bona fides, pointing out that it will be "especially good for low-income New Yorkers, who are more likely to rely on transit."

Does the Rubber Meet the Road? Investigating the Alternatives to Congestion Pricing, a 14-page study (pdf) issued by Environmental Defense and the Pratt Center for Community Development, breaks it down as follows.

Anthony Weiner's Reducing Traffic and Improving Our Environment: An Alternative to the Car Tax: Many aspects of this proposal are similar to the PlaNYC's original congestion pricing scheme. However, Congressman Weiner would limit congestion pricing to trucks only and would take a series of steps to open up more existing road space for faster-moving traffic, such as reducing alternate side street parking, and increasing traffic law enforcement, that would attract more traffic in the long run. He also suggests large-scale, long-term capital investments, such as building a Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel, that while essential for long-term regional planning, cannot address traffic with the immediacy and revenue-generating capacity of congestion pricing.

Lew Fidler's 9 Carat Stone Plan: This plan to fund long term transportation projects, including three major tunnels requiring massive capital investment, essentially levies a regional payroll tax that would support the state's general fund and not be dedicated to transportation investment, unlike tolls. Councilman Fidler proposes hydrogen powered cars, which automakers and scientists agree are many years and breakthroughs away from being practical and commercially viable. He supplements these ideas with short term measures such as increased truck loading zones and enforcement of traffic laws that, while perhaps good to speed traffic flow and ensure better safety, are not likely to achieve significant reductions in traffic volumes. Other elements of Councilman Fidler's plan, such as moving government offices from Manhattan to the other boroughs, would simply displace current traffic to new locations, and to the extent that those locations are less centrally-located in the transit system, there would likely be a net increase in traffic overall.

Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free's Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District: This plan, primarily supported by AAA, the Metropolitan Parking Association and the Queens Civic Congress, among others, combines several separate measures that collectively claim to meet and exceed the 6.3% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction of the mayor's plan. In fact, many will simply make driving easier in the Central Business District, thus probably attracting more drivers over time. Furthermore, the report's additive approach for totaling VMT reduction overstates the results dramatically, double-counting many overlapping traffic reduction measures.

"Unlike congestion pricing, these alternatives would encourage driving -- not discourage it -- and as a result attract more traffic in the long term," says Michael Replogle, transportation director for Environmental Defense and the report's primary author, via media release. "They also fail to match the criteria required by the federal grant, by state law, and the reality test for effectiveness, timeliness and revenue potential."

"Alternative proposals to fund mass transit through broad income and payroll tax increases are like taking a sledgehammer to a nail because they place special burdens on low and middle income residents," says Joan Byron, Director of the Sustainability and Environmental Justice Initiative of The Pratt Center. "In contrast, a congestion pricing plan benefits lower-income folks most and burdens them least since the vast majority of them rely on public transportation, and do not drive into Manhattan's zone."

Thanks to Zupan, Transportation Alternatives and other critics, four fundamental problems with the Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free plan have emerged:

1. Any alternative plan which does not include some form of congestion pricing will forfeit $354.5 million in federal transportation aid -- much of which is dedicated to bus improvements in Brooklyn and Queens.

2. The plan does not address through traffic, which accounts for 39% of driving in the Manhattan CBD. Congestion pricing does.

3. The plan does not address -- and may worsen -- traffic diversions from paid river crossings to free East River and Harlem River bridges, which hurt neighborhoods including Downtown Brooklyn, LIC/Woodside, Harlem and the South Bronx. Congestion pricing directly addresses these traffic diversions.

4. Some of the traffic reducing measures in the plan -- value parking pricing, variable tolls and BRT, for example -- would be far more effective if used with congestion pricing, instead of as a substitute for it. Many of the measures are not "alternatives" to congestion pricing but complements.

Among other problems with the report, the Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free plan applies an "equity double standard":  It harshly criticizes congestion pricing for its pocketbook impact on middle class motorists while ignoring the impacts of value parking, variable tolling and $200 double parking tickets that the plan would impose on these same motorists.

Zupan sums up the "Alternatives" report:

While many of these measures are worthwhile, the report overstates both their traffic reduction impact and their revenue potential. Many of these estimates are speculative, and the costs and difficulties of implementation are largely unaddressed. More importantly, nearly all of these would be far more effective if implemented in combination with congestion pricing.

The full text of Zupan's comments appears after the jump.

Comments by Jeffrey M. Zupan, Senior Fellow for Transportation
October 15, 2007
on “Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District (October 2007)”
by Keep New York Congestion Tax Free

This report argues for a set of 13 proposals that could reduce vehicles miles traveled and congestion by as much or more than PlaNYC’s proposed congestion pricing pilot program. While many of these measures are worthwhile, the report overstates both their traffic reduction impact and their revenue potential. Many of these estimates are speculative, and the costs and difficulties of implementation are largely unaddressed.  More importantly, nearly all of these would be far more effective if implemented in combination with congestion pricing. The following comments address the specific proposals in the report.

Meter 10,000 now free on-street spaces and charge double the current rate: The report estimates that this action would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 1.8 to 2.4 percent and increase revenues by $80 to $100 million per year. The report indicates that a 1995 study found that cruising for on-street parking accounts for 15 percent of VMT in west midtown during midday, and they extrapolate this to all day for all of the charging zone, an unsupported assumption. The revenue assumptions are equivalent to each parking space being used fully for 13 hours each weekday, which may be overly optimistic. They do not account for the added cost of meter installation, enforcement, and administration. Conclusion: Traffic impacts are conjectural and net revenue gains are likely to be too high.

Reforming placard use: The report indicates such reform could lead to reductions of “perhaps 2 to 3 percent” and add $50 to $60 million in revenues. They cite Bruce Schaller’s reports on the subject. There are three problems with their analysis. First, they rely on a hypothetical example by Schaller of a 14,000 reduction in cars driven by government employees, i.e. a “what if” not an estimate. But they also say that a review to identify which workers should receive (or keep) placards must be done. There is no certainty that the resulting review would eliminate 14,000 workers from the placard pool. Second, they assume that each worker travels 4 to 5 miles per day within the zone, which is much too high since most of the workers are destined for Lower Manhattan and the vast majority are likely to cross into the zone across the nearby East River, and if they do come from the north use the FDR Drive or West Street. Third, the report takes credit for added revenue as former placard users switch to on-street meters.  This assumption is flawed in two respects: a) it cannot assume that these workers would continue to drive and switch to on-street meters, as many may switch to public transit or off-street parking, and b) the added revenue has already been counted in the on-street meter proposal discussed above. Conclusion: Both the VMT reductions and revenue potential are likely to be much lower than estimated in the report and implementation will be difficult.  

Reduction in taxi cruising: This action is estimated to reduce VMT by “perhaps 2 to 3 percent.”  No revenue potential is assumed. They target a goal of 50 additional cab stands to accomplish this, but do not discuss locations or the difficulty in finding locations where it can make sense from a traffic impact perspective. The report states that cruising accounts for 13 percent of VMT and takes credit for reductions in cruising by 10 to 20 percent, not out of line IF you could install 50 cab stands. Conclusion: Ability to implement is unproven.

Higher taxi fares: A $3 surcharge for trips starting or ending in the zone is suggested, which is estimated to reduce VMT by 1.5 percent. The report points out that taxis are excluded from the current congestion pricing (CP) plan. No revenue gain is assumed for the City. In effect, this is a policy that could also be effectuated through congestion pricing by eliminating or reducing the taxi exemption. There is no discussion of the City’s argument that this could have negative economic impacts, or the political difficulty of getting it enacted. Conclusion: This measure, if included as part of the City’s congestion pricing plan, would increase the revenue potential to be directed toward public transit.

Higher and variable tolls on existing tolls facilities: The report’s proposal is estimated to reduce VMTs by 1.5 percent and bring in $195 million per year. The assumption about these tolls increase is that the added revenue is a substitute for the revenue achieved by the congestion pricing proposal. However, it tries to take credit for expected increases in PA and MTA tolls that have to be made in any case to cover rising operating, maintenance and debt service costs rather than the new money for state of good repair and system expansion that CP would generate. So the revenue cannot be counted as a replacement for congestion pricing revenue. It does raise the unanswered question of whether the CP charge will increase along with tolls.

This proposal also highlights the inequities and inefficiencies of the current system, flaws that congestion pricing would correct. The increase of tolls on current facilities while leaving other entry points free places the entire financial burden on only a portion of drivers entering the CBD. It will also exacerbate congestion in neighborhoods leading to the free crossings as drivers seek to avoid higher tolls. Variable tolls would also be far more effective when combined with congestion pricing. In fact, a study commissioned by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign in August found the largest time saving benefits would be realized if MTA instituted a value pricing program consistent with PlaNYC’s proposed congestion pricing plan. Conclusion: Periodic toll increases cannot be seen as a substitute for congestion pricing, and in the absence of it would be inequitable and lead to more traffic problems, especially in Brooklyn and Queens, not less. Variable pricing is an effective tool that should be implemented along with congestion pricing.

Two-way truck tolls on the VN Bridge are estimated to reduce VMT by 0.1 to 0.2 percent and add $10 million in revenue. These estimates are small and conjectural and the proposal, no matter how sound, will and has received tremendous resistance from Staten Island. Conclusion: This proposal, although a sound one is largely irrelevant as part of a substitute for the City’s Plan.

Increased fines from traffic enforcement are estimated to gain from $75 million to $150 million in revenue annually. At the proposed fine levels, this would require an average of 6,000 summonses a day. It would be useful to know how much of an increase in summonses that represents. The estimates are conjectural and the cost of issuing these summonses is not accounted for. If successful in reducing violations, which is not ensured, the revenues would diminish over time. One cannot take credit for both traffic gains and sustained revenue gains from enforcement measures. Conclusion: In the absence of more analysis, it appears that the revenue estimates are overstated and the enforcement costs understated.

Block the box ticketing is proposed and estimated to gain $15 or to $25 million in revenue based on 300 to 500 additional summonses daily. This is highly conjectural, but like other traffic enforcement measures that issue summonses, even should the program be successful in reducing block the box violations, the revenue gains would diminish over time. Conclusion: The revenue gains are likely to be overstated.

Black car enforcement measures, construction project regulations, traffic signal upgrades, and implementing 511 are proposed but all traffic gains are conjectural and revenue gains, if any, are modest. Conclusion: These measures are useful complements to the City’s CP plan, but traffic and revenue benefits are conjectural and modest.

Added bus and ferry services are assumed to attract 5,000 auto commuters, but this estimated is highly conjectural and unlikely; there will be no financial incentive for drivers to shift, as there is with the congestion pricing plan.  The shift is presented as hypothetical and none of the net added costs associated with these new services are accounted for. Conclusion: The traffic benefits are conjectural and the net revenues are likely to be exceeded by the costs to implement.

Proponents of congestion pricing, who would probably otherwise support many the alternative’s ideas, immediately blasted it for being what it probably is –- a red herring designed to ensure that nothing happens, existing privileges are maintained, and problems are not solved, but the public is confused about who is to blame and thus just shrugs its shoulders. The typical Albany win over the public, in other words. Still, there is enough of interest in the proposal that it deserves a thoughtful review, and such a review finds that it is essentially an extension of current policies, and has the same hole as those policies. 

Since most of these are sensible measures they shouldn’t be rejected out of hand. But they don’t do anything to discourage through traffic, an issue the opponents acknowledge. Even so, the congestion pricing opponents, in recommending variable tolls for peak and non-peak hours and higher costs for parking have accepted the concept of using pricing to limit the over-use of a scarce resource, a large leap for them to make if they have in fact made it. Perhaps they should be given a little credit rather than just ignored.

Here is the complete article. 

Photo: roinks/Flickr

Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free proposes a cost-effective, efficient, fair and practical alternative plan that will address the problems posed by congestion in New York City and exceed the guidelines imposed by the Urban Partnership Agreement between the USDOT and New York City, New York State and the MTA.

The report then details ten traffic reducing measures as alternatives to congestion pricing.

Unfortunately, "Keep NYC's" language here is misleading. Regardless of whatever potential traffic reducing benefits these alternatives might provide, the U.S. Department of Transportation has made it very clear that New York City's congestion reduction plan must include congestion pricing or New York City will not get $354.5 million in federal Urban Partnership start-up funds, of which $342 million is for new buses, bus depots and Bus Rapid Transit.

The Urban Partnership agreement between the USDOT and NYC, NY State and the MTA, which can be downloaded here, says:

In the event the New York State legislature enacts and the New York City Council approves the Mayor's Plan, the Urban Partner agrees to undertake the following actions: (i) institute a broad area pricing system in Manhattan south of 86th Street…

(The "Mayor's Plan" is the congestion pricing plan and is what the feds considered as New York City's submission for Urban Partnership funding.)

Later in the document the USDOT explains what it would fund as an alternative to the mayor's congestion pricing plan:

5. Grant Agreements for Alternative Plan.

In the event that the New York State legislature enacts and the New York City Council approves an alternative congestion mitigation plan, the Department and the Urban Partner agree to negotiate the funding of such plan if it:

(a) Is reasonably expected to reduce average vehicle miles traveled by at least 6.3 percent across a geographic area of similar size and travel characteristics to the area proposed for pricing under the Mayor's Plan;

(b) Uses pricing as the principal mechanism for achieving this congestion reduction;

(c) Includes at least an eighteen month operation of congestion pricing;

In other words, if the legislatures moved the border of the pricing zone from 86^th Street to 60^th Street that would probably be OK. But both here, and in the agreement summary, the feds clearly state that the $354.5 million in Urban Partnership funding is contingent on congestion pricing. The feds use the words "area pricing system" and "congestion pricing" to make it clear they seek to support a fee for pricing street use, and that a value parking scheme and the other traffic reducing measures ­within the Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free report -- however effective -- are not what they are considering. Thus, any alternative congestion relief plan adopted by the legislatures which does not include congestion pricing will forfeit $354.5 million in federal Urban Partnership start-up fund, including $342 million for better bus service.

While waiting for Walter McCaffrey to send over an official version (he sent it -- download it here), we managed to get a hold of a bootleg copy of the executive summary of the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free's new report. Willie Neuman has a write-up of the report in the Times today as well.

The Committee's report aims to offer up alternatives to Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal, many of which are ideas familiar and appealing to regular readers of Streetsblog. The executive summary itemizes eight specific traffic mitigation ideas and calculates that, together, these could reduce VMT, or vehicle miles traveled, between 7.6 and 11.5 percent south of 86th Street (table above).

New York City's $354.5 million federal grant is dependent on a plan that reduces VMT by at least 6.3 percent. The grant, however, is also dependent on the City implementing some form of congestion pricing technology as a part of that plan, so it's not at all clear if any of the suggestions above would allow the city to keep that money.

Hugh O'Neill, the president of Appleseed, the economics consulting firm which wrote the report, acknowledges that his numbers are soft. Neuman reports:

Altogether, the study says, such measures could reduce traffic volume by 7 to 11 percent. Mr. O'Neill said, however, that the estimate was very rough.

"I would fully acknowledge that those numbers are speculative and would need to be subject to further analysis," he said. "I think what the numbers legitimately show is that there are real options, real world alternatives, many of which are much simpler to implement than what the city has proposed."

The report does not include an overall estimate for the cost of putting its proposals in place, but it says it would cost far less than the mayor's congestion pricing plan.

In addition to a "speculative" analysis, the report offers no price tag for its proposed changes. Some ideas, like increasing the cost of on-street parking and reforming the city's government employee parking abuse problem, are almost certainly net revenue earners, though come with their own set of costs and political challenges. Other suggestions have a universally appealing but vaguely expensive ring to them; for example, this one: "Major transit improvements."

In addition to the eight congestion pricing alternatives listed in the table above, the executive summary offers these as well:

Options that reduce VMT, congestion or both (2008-2009)

• Reducing congestion caused by black cars and non-yellow for hire vehicles.
• More effectively regulating the use of streets for construction projects.
• Modernizing traffic signal systems.
• Implementing 511 (A system to notify drivers of real time traffic conditions).

Options for reducing congestion beyond 2010

• Bus Rapid Transit.
• Lower Manhattan bus depot.
• Incentives for off-peak delivery.
• Increased use of water transportation for movement of freight.
• Expanding the Lower Manhattan traffic management program to Midtown.
• Improving the distribution of information to motorists by state of the art technology.
• Encouraging greater use of bicycle transportation.
  

It wasn't your typical congestion pricing forum, but last night about 50 people got to hear the pros and cons of the Bloomberg plan debated in a relaxed, informal setting, with instructions from the moderators to keep drinking.

The event, sponsored by the London-based Institution of Civil Engineers, brought together two proponents and two critics of pricing at Manhattan's 11th Street Bar, in Alphabet City. Amidst the academic banter, kind lighting and cold pints, it was hard to imagine things would get all that heated. They didn't.

Not that the dialogue was short on substance. Critic Dr. John Falcocchio, Professor of Transportation Planning at Polytechnic University of New York, for instance, didn't seem to be against pricing as a concept as much as he was skeptical of the plan as proposed. According to Falcocchio, a variable pricing scheme based on the Stockholm program, rather than London's flat-rate model, would be a better fit for New York. Falcocchio said charging more during peak congestion times would speed traffic flow more effectively than a flat fee, which he believes will fail to reduce congestion "in a measurable way." Falcocchio acknowledged the transit benefit from pricing revenues, yet advocated for improved enforcement of traffic laws before a possible "gradual" implementation of pricing.

NYC DOT Director of Studies Thomas Maguire replied that enforcement is built into the plan, and that the city would like to have more red light cameras (which depend on approval by suspicious state lawmakers). Maguire also pointed out that there is no neighborhood in the city where a majority of commuters don't already take transit, but noted that some of the worst congestion is in "asthma alley" neighborhoods leading into Manhattan and the central business district. Driving, Maguire said, is a choice, and pricing uses a "carrot and stick" approach to encourage motorists to choose transit.

Representing the anti-pricing Queens Chamber of Commerce Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free, attorney Corey Bearak claimed that population projections cited by PlaNYC are "dead wrong" (talking point alert!), and are an "excuse" to squeeze the middle-class "schlump" who has to drive into Manhattan. Bearak said neighborhoods with asthma-stricken populations are located "nowhere near" the congestion pricing zone, and that too much of the anticipated pricing revenue would be devoted to administrative costs. Instead of pricing, Bearak said, the city should work on reviving the commuter tax.

After a round of queries from the audience to both sides -- including one about the city's "schizophrenia" when it comes to clipping bikes (out of DOT's hands, responded Maguire) and bike parking (no definitive answer here, other than possible isolated zoning adjustments) -- ICE moderator David Caiden called the question. "Congestion Pricing, as proposed in PlaNYC 2030, Solves Manhattan's Transport Problems," yea or nay?

Twenty-six audience members were polled in favor, with "not even 15" against.

As moderator, I don't believe Caiden was counted among the 26, but he could have been. "I think it should be $50," he said earlier in the evening, referring to charging "those evil-doers coming in by car."

"But I'm not at all biased," he added.

While it sounds like a serious study and revision of New York City parking policy is something that pretty much everyone might be able to get behind, Schuerman points out that Walter McCaffrey's lobbying group, "Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free is supported in part by parking garage owners who would logically see underpriced on-street parking as unfair competition." The Observer reports:

The lobbying group opposing congestion pricing is considering ways to reform curbside parking as one alternative to the Mayor's plan to charge drivers $8 to enter core areas of Manhattan.

The group, Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free (which now has a Web site), even approached Donald Shoup, a parking guru at the University of California at Los Angeles who advocates for higher metered rates, to commission a study. But the lobbying group seems to have dropped the idea after Mr. Shoup wrote back with an ambivalent answer.

"They asked me and I wrote back," Mr. Shoup told The Observer via telephone recently. "I told them I'm a great fan of congestion pricing."

Still, Mr. Shoup said raising metered rates makes a good deal of sense, and would be a necessary prerequisite for congestion pricing. His theory is that rates should be raised high enough to discourage idle trips. That would free up one or two spots on every block, creating a so-called "Goldilocks effect" that would reduce the number of cars trolling for spaces.

"I think that [New York City] has done everything wrong in terms of getting something done soon," Mr. Shoup said. "It doesn't make sense to introduce this very expensive congestion pricing system and keep curb parking free. It is easy to charge a parked car. It is hard to charge a moving car."

Walter McCaffrey, the lobbyist for the anti-congestion pricing group, could not confirm that his team had reached out to Mr. Shoup, but said that it was looking at parking policy.

"In some places, you could end up having an ability to remove meters to allow for a better flow of traffic depending on the width of the street, or you could temporarily remove the meters on a street where there is construction going on," Mr. McCaffrey said.

7.23.07 Crain's NY Business page 3

Agreement gives supporters clout to undercut foes and win over public. Foes' main gripe has been lack of time to digest the plan

BY ERIK ENGQUIST

The agreement reached in Albany last week appears to set up a legislative gantlet through which Mayor Michael Bloomberg must run his congestion pricing plan. But details of the deal make approval of Manhattan driving fees a near certainty next year.

The reasons are both technical and political. The commission to consider the proposal and alternatives must approve a plan by Jan. 31, 2008, that reduces traffic by 6.3%, as the mayor's plan would. Analysts say only fees can accomplish that.

"We've looked around the world," says Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City. "Congestion pricing was the only thing that made a significant impact on traffic."

The political deck is likewise stacked in favor of congestion fees. The 17-member commission will recommend a plan by majority vote. Fourteen members will be appointed by pricing supporters: three each by Mr. Bloomberg, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and one each by Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith and Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco.

The three named by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who remains dubious about fees, will be vastly outnumbered. Mr. Silver himself will have reasons to join the bandwagon, even though many Assembly Democrats have criticized the proposal to charge cars $8 and trucks $21 for entering Manhattan south of 86th Street. The fees will help fund the Second Avenue subway, which will serve the speaker's district.

The mayor unveiled his proposal three months ago, and foes' biggest gripe has been the lack of time to digest or amend it. The agreement's timetable, which requires a vote in the Legislature by next March, nullifies that objection.

Moreover, Assembly Democrats rely on those who endorse congestion pricing-unions, environmentalists, and transportation and goodgovernment groups-for campaign funding and volunteers. It will be difficult for members to break with their traditional supporters.

The agreement also gives backers time to build public enthusiasm and undercut Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's argument that charging people to drive on public streets is regressive and fundamentally unfair.

But those trying to block the plan claim that time is on their side.

"There are enough concerns that the Legislature has raised on this to question whether the mayor's plan will go forward," says Richard Lipsky, lobbyist for the Coalition to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free. "We're hopeful that when the plan is reviewed, the reservations will increase."

Feds must give $200 million Their first hope lies with the U.S. Department of Transportation: If it doesn't give the city at least $200 million to help implement the plan, the agreement will collapse.

If the money comes through, it is unclear where Mr. Lipsky would find the allies he needs. The mayor can count on Republican support from the Bush administration and Mr. Bruno, and on Democratic backing from Mr. Spitzer, organized labor and progressive activists.

A broad, well-funded coalition of advocates will also keep pushing for fees to ease the congestion that the Partnership for New York City says drains $13 billion from the economy each year-a figure projected to increase with the population.

On Mr. Silver's insistence, the City Council must sign off on the plan for it to move to the Legislature. Only a few councilmembers have been highly critical, and Ms. Quinn has the clout to pull fence-sitters onto congestion pricing's side.

The deal's mass transit improvements- always popular with the electorate-will provide political cover to those who fear being the first elected officials in America to vote for fees to drive on city streets.

"Our arguments are the most forceful and will lead to congestion pricing," asserts Richard Schrader, state legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It is the key piece."

Walter McCaffrey's Committee to Keep New York City Congestion Tax Free has torn a page from StreetFilms' book and put out its very own propaganda video.

The quiet, elegant two-minute SubFilm shows crowds of people using New York City's subway system with quotes like, "Here come the sardines," mixed in.

The producers clearly intended this video as an argument against Mayor Bloomberg's traffic relief and transit improvement proposals but it's hard not to come away from it thinking: Yes, subways are crowded. Let's get congestion pricing up and running to pay for new transit capacity.

Clarence, you might want to call Walter and offer your services.

Paybarah points out:

There's nothing terribly new here, although it occurs to me that if the argument becomes one about whether or not there's actually too much traffic in Manhattan, that's a bad thing for opponents of the plan. Whatever the numbers say.

The Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free Coalition will argue that the proposal is unfair to Queens residents, says group spokesman Walter McCaffrey, the former city councilman. Two-thirds of the borough's inhabitants who need medical treatment travel to Manhattan, he says, especially for high-quality cancer and heart care.

"Especially for seniors, this becomes difficult to bear," Mr. McCaffrey says.

In subsequent weeks, opponents will argue that stores like Macy's and Bloomingdale's in Manhattan will probably pass higher delivery costs on to their customers. As a result, New Jersey residents will shop locally instead of traveling to the city, Mr. McCaffrey claims.

The coalition is also expected to argue that the initial cost -- $8 for cars and $21 for trucks driving within Manhattan below 86th Street during business hours -- will rise sharply. They note that London, the model for the New York plan, began congestion pricing with a fee of roughly $8, which was quickly increased to about $16. Now, the city is considering a hike to roughly $20.