Streetsblog New York City

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.

Matthew Schuerman at the Observer reports that New York City congestion pricing opponents sought to commission UCLA urban planning guru Donald Shoup to do a study of New York City's parking policies. Shoup declined their request. Presumably, congestion pricing opponents hoped a Shoup study might show that New York City could solve some portion of its traffic congestion problem through changes in on-street parking policy.

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.

Contrary to some of the more pessimistic analyses that appeared after last week's congestion pricing deal (like ours, theirs and this one too), Crain's Erik Engquist writes that "details of the deal make approval of Manhattan driving fees a near certainty next year." The article is for subscribers only on the Crain's web site:

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.

Read more...

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.

As The Politicker’s Azi Paybarah reported yesterday, the anti-traffic relief group, "Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free"
re-released its report, "Congestion Pricing in the Central Business District: Let’s Look Hard Before We Leap." Commissioned by the Queens Chamber of Commerce, the study calls into doubt the benefits of Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed congestion pricing scheme, with some revised numbers from an earlier version they put out a few weeks ago. 

In response, the Citywide Coalition for Traffic Relief, a diverse collection of more than 80 different civic organizations, released a report called, "Debunking the Attack on Congestion Pricing."

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.

Crain's New York Business reports that the group leading the campaign against congestion pricing will begin a lobbying blitz aimed at derailing Mayor Bloomberg's pricing proposal next week, just as the mayor goes to Albany to try to win state legislators over to his PlaNYC initiative. The arguments to be mounted by the "Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free Coalition" range from the speculative to the alarmist:

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.