I'm not sure that this particular set of facts matters one bit to Traffic Mitigation Commission member Richard Brodsky, who claims to represent the little guy in the congestion pricing debate, but New York City's Independent Budget Office released a report today demolishing the argument that pricing is unfair to the poor and working class (download it here).

"Commuters who use private motor vehicles to commute to the congestion zone," the IBO found, "are generally better off than other commuters to the area." The median annual earnings of motor vehicle users exceeded median annual earnings of other commuters by 30 percent -- $51,021 for motorists versus $39,247 for other commuters.

Moreover, "Motor vehicle users were less likely to be in the lowest 10 percent of earners and more likely to be in the top 10 percent." Motor vehicle users also came from higher income households -- "The median annual household income was $97,136 for those who drove to work in the proposed congestion zone and $75,550 for other commuters to the zone."

"These findings largely counter concerns that congestion pricing would disproportionately affect workers less able to afford additional commuting costs," the report concludes. A Drum Major Institute study made similar findings earlier this year.

And who are these motor vehicle users? IBO found "striking contrasts between private motor vehicle users and other commuters." Motorists are "twice as likely as other congestion zone commuters to hold government jobs" -- 19.5 percent versus 10.3 percent. About a quarter of these government motor vehicle users work in the police or fire departments. "Indeed, very few congestion zone commuters in these occupations took other forms of transportation," according to IBO. Educators represented another one-fourth of government employee car commuters, "although many other educators used alternative transportation."

Conclusion: "Commuters who use private motor vehicles to commute to the congestion zone are generally better off than other commuters to the area."

And in case you forgot, back in July, a Transportation Alternatives study found that Manhattan-bound drive-to-work constituents in Brodsky's Westchester district earn on average $176,231 annually -- the highest of any New York county in the metropolitan area. 

First of all, like many on the government payroll, he's got his own ideas about parking policy:

Already late for a meeting, he guided his deputy chief of staff, who was at the wheel, into a parking lot. "Just take the handicapped spot," he suggested, but she thought better of it and found a legitimate spot of her own.

Brodsky learned politics at the feet of Ed Muskie and Bella Abzug. He viscerally rejects the market-based, technology-driven environmental policy of congestion pricing. In his fight to maintain the free, unfettered motoring that his generation grew up with, he claims to be defending the interests of New York City's poor and working class. And though he talks, sounds and acts like the quintessential, baby-boomer, New York liberal politician, that's not how he defines himself:

A self-described progressive known for having a point of view on pretty much everything, he is also emerging as a key player in the battle over congestion pricing, Mayor Bloomberg's plan to charge $8 to drive in core Manhattan on weekdays. Mr. Brodsky does not like it.

Everyone Schuerman talks to -- even his opposition -- seems to like Brodsky and think he's a genuinely smart guy:

"Richard is an extremely intelligent guy who I believe could bring consensus to this issue if he really has an open mind," said Kathryn Wylde, the president and chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, and a member of the commission. "For him to become an advocate of congestion pricing is unlikely, but convincing him that the process of getting there is fair and the plan is comprehensive enough are going to be very important to making the commission work."

However, some suggest that Brodsky may be confused about what sort of transportation policy would actually benefit the vast majority of poor and middle class New Yorkers:

"A lot of it is lazy thinking-using the language of the middle class to put fear into a large segment of the population for the benefit of a small segment," said another commission member, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, executive director of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. "He confuses driving with a public good without recognizing that it is the streets that are the public good."

Photo: James Hamilton for the Observer

Transportation Alternatives ("T.A."), New York City's advocate for cycling, walking and environmentally sensible transportation, has raised serious questions about the motives and efficacy of a proposed alternative to congestion pricing that has been presented to the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission.

"It's ironic that Transportation Alternatives should have to come out against a plan primarily comprised of traffic claiming measures we support or even initially proposed," said T.A. Executive Director Paul Steely White. "However, while each of the traffic calming measured offered in the proposal are valuable, presenting them as an alternative to congestion pricing rather than a supplement to it belies logic." White questioned the motives behind the proposal, stating, "if the 'Keep NYC Congestion' group was genuinely dedicated to reducing traffic and its negative consequences on our city, it would be joining Transportation Alternatives in supporting [the proposal's] measures as supplements to congestion pricing. But finding the best way to reduce traffic has never been the 'Keep NYC Congestion' group's mission, nor is it the true motive behind their proposal. Their actual motive, and the very purpose for which they were established, is to advance their rich funders' economic interests by defeating congestion pricing. I have no doubt the Commission will see through this smoke screen."

T.A.'s analysis of the proposal concludes that while its individual traffic calming measures are valuable, even collectively, they would be nowhere near as effective at reducing traffic as congestion pricing. Consequently, T.A. predicts the Commission will find they do not constitute a viable, alternative plan unto themselves.

T.A.'s Lobbyist Chad Marlow, President of The Public Advocacy Group LLC, was more direct in his criticism of the "ticky-tack proposal," calling it "nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to save wealthy Deadbeat Drivers from paying an $8 congestion pricing fee while, at the same time, increasing demand for the Manhattan parking garage space owned by the primary funders of the proposal and the group who submitted it."

According to T.A., the proposal's many shortcomings include:

• Failing to use pricing as the "principal mechanism" to achieve traffic reduction, thereby forfeiting the $350 million grant awarded to New York City by the United States Department of Transportation and the substantial transportation improvements the grant would have paid for;
  
• Employing Manhattan-centric traffic mitigation that does nothing to reduce the volume of single-occupancy cars commuting through the Bronx, Harlem, Greenpoint-Williamsburg, Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn;
  
• Securing no traffic reductions on major arteries and no improvements in the speed or reliability of bus service;
  
• Containing no provisions to manage traffic on the free East River crossings, thereby providing further incentive to drivers to avoid underutilized tolled crossings like the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel; and
  
• Relying on enforcement-intensive measures that have never been successfully conducted on a sustainable, long-term basis by the City of New York.
  

One falsehood contained in the proposal drew particularly strong objections from T.A.: The claim that congestion pricing "disproportionately hits the pockets of middle class and working New Yorkers." Marlow called the statement "part of a specific, continuing strategy by wealthy individuals and their hired guns to confuse middle class New Yorkers about the overwhelming, virtually cost-free benefits they will receive from congestion pricing." White concurred, noting that "the 'Keep NYC Congestion' group has no credibility on this point. After all, the group was specifically created to represent the interests of rich Deadbeat Drivers and even richer parking garage owners - none of whom are middle class or particularly care about middle class interests. On the other hand, "White pointed out, "highly credible organizations with long histories of representing and protecting middle class interests, like the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, have unequivocally concluded that congestion pricing is in the best interest of current and aspiring middle class New Yorkers."

Is Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, a regressive tax, unfair to New York City's poor and working class?

That's what Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky and quite a few of the other critics claim. Before last week's public hearing before the state legislature Brodsky cited a study commissioned by City Hall showing the mayor's plan would increase the average speed of vehicles in Manhattan from 8 mph to 8.6 mph, and said to the Daily News, "Why is this worth a regressive tax on the middle class and a new invasion of privacy to go only six-tenths of a mile further in an hour?"

There are a lot of different ways to address the equity question and rebut the claim that congestion pricing is a regressive tax. Bruce Schaller did a nice job of it for Gotham Gazette. And the Drum Major Institute has made a strong case as well.

But the best case of all might be made simply by handing Richard Brodsky and his fellow State Assembly members Metrocards and loading them all up on the M14 crosstown bus, winner of last year's Pokey Award for its 3.9 mph average speed.

New York City's fare-paying bus riders account for nearly 2.3 million trips on the average weekday. As a group, they are among New York's most disadvantaged -- disproportionately women, seniors, children and the disabled. Even relatively well-off bus commuters with full-time jobs, have household incomes $10,000, on average, lower than car commuters (see chart above). While bus ridership is surging, bus speeds are plummeting. Some New York City buses travel slower than a walking pace.

When London Mayor Ken
Livingstone was mustering public support for congestion pricing, he made sure that the public and the critics knew that bus riders would be some of the biggest beneficiaries of his traffic reduction plan. Mayor Bloomberg ought to do the same.

How much will bus riders benefit? While six-tenths of a mile per hour speed increase may not sound like much to Brodsky, it adds up to nearly 14 million hours a year in time savings for bus riders, according to calculations by economist Charles Komanoff.

Applying the speed-up projected in the mayor's PlaNYC report -- ranging from 1 percent in Staten Island to 7.5 percent in Manhattan -- Komanoff estimates that once congestion pricing gets under way, bus riders annually will spend 3.2 million fewer hours waiting at bus stops and 10.7 million fewer hours stuck in bus crawl (Download Komanoff's detailed spreadsheet).

The mayor needs to develop specific constituencies that feel they will benefit directly from pricing. If the city's one million plus regular bus riders feel they have a stake in pricing, it would help create a reservoir of support outside of Manhattan. Most New Yorkers outside of Manhattan seem to perceive pricing's benefits as diffuse and its costs as very specific. This is why a proposal that costs nothing to 95 percent of the public is having political trouble.

When underdog Bill Clinton ran for president, his campaign kept itself focused with the slogan "It's the economy, stupid." Similarly, Mayor Bloomberg's slogan could be, "It's the bus riders, stu… um, Brodsky."

Photo: Birdfarm on Flickr