Crain's also names Staten Island Councilman Mike McMahon one of the losers. They suggest that his support of congestion pricing has ruined any chance he has to win the Borough presidency. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Crain's is wrong about that.

Only 5.8% of Staten Island's Central Business District commuters travel by car. Most of these drivers already pay a toll. Since the toll is discounted, congestion pricing wouldn't add all that much of a burden to all that many Staten Islanders. More significant, Staten Island is a big winner if congestion pricing passes. I've gotten a sneak peak at one of the new Bus Rapid Transit projects planned for the traffic-choked borough. I can't say much about it except that it is outstanding and will be the most exemplary BRT line in New York City if it goes forward as planned. It'll be a huge benefit in a borough where traffic congestion is the number one quality of life issue.

Thanks to his yes vote for congestion pricing, Mike McMahon is the guy who can say he brought this project home. Meanwhile, McMahon's likely opponent Jimmy Oddo is the guy who turned his back on the best opportunity in a generation to solve Staten Island's ever-worsening traffic problem.

Walter McCaffrey, right, a former city councilman from Queens who has been coordinating opposition to the mayor's plan on behalf of the Queens Chamber of Commerce, The Automobile Club of New York and parking industry interests, said in a statement:

If the goal truly is to reduce traffic, the city has a moral and legal obligation to seek any and all alternatives before adding a new tax scheme to overburdened New Yorkers. Further, the plan foresees less than an 8 percent improvement in traffic density, with the bulk of the federal funding earmarked for the city to spend on other priorities. The fact remains that the overall congestion tax and vehicle surveillance plan still can - and should - be derailed by the various legislatures if its proponents fail to prove the plan will not cause our citizens, especially those so vigorously opposed in the outer boroughs, an onerous expense and disruption. At all times, the public's best interest should be in the driver's seat, and we will keep our hazard lights on to continue warning all New Yorkers to the problems ahead.

Kathryn S. Wylde is the president of the Partnership for New York City, a leading member of the The Campaign for New York's Future, a coalition of more than 150 civic, business, environmental, labor, community and public health organizations who support congestion pricing. Wylde said in a statement:

In selecting New York City for the Urban Partners Program, the federal Department of Transportation has allowed us to meet the threshold criteria established by recent state legislation for implementation of a comprehensive program to reduce traffic congestion and improve mass transit in the region. The Partnership has documented the high cost of excess traffic, which results in losses of more than $13 billion and 50,000 jobs each year from our regional economy. Federal funding provides the carrot that will help pay for new buses, faster subways and the other measures required to incentivize people to get out of their cars and on to public transportation. This is a tremendous breakthrough in the struggle to achieve a more efficient, mobile city.

Glick, however, isn't a fan of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan. In the 1,300 word letter below she lays out her concerns and explains to a constituent why she and her colleagues opted to create a 17-member traffic mitigation commission rather than approve the Mayor's plan.

While many of Glick's questions and concerns have been answered repeatedly in public forums, through local studies and by examples in other cities, there is a certain thoughtfulness and sincerity to her letter that you tend not to hear in the arguments of congestion pricing opponents like Richard Lipsky and Walter McCaffrey who, one suspects, are doing little more than representing the deeply regressive interests of the parking garage / Automobile Club / Queens Chamber of Commerce cabal.

Glick calls herself a "responsible legislator" who "has long been concerned with traffic congestion" problems in her district. The questions that she raises are questions that will need to be answered again and again and again in the coming months.

Fundamentally, Glick believes "there is no consensus" on whether Mayor Bloomberg's pricing plan "would reduce congestion, or simply raise revenue." She "had too many unanswered questions and found too many flaws in the congestion pricing legislation to be supportive of it in the form that was presented to the Legislature by Mayor Bloomberg." And she seems to have resented the intense lobbying and the feeling that New York City's Republican Mayor was trying "to stampede the Legislature into a vote" on his plan. Glick raises the following as an example of the kind of question that she feels was not answered:

The proposal purported to reduce asthma, especially for children. However, many communities just outside of the congestion pricing zone have significant asthma rates and it is possible that those communities might have to contend with increased vehicular traffic as commuters driving into the city attempt to park in these neighborhoods outside of the zone.

Other questions that Glick felt were not properly answered by the Mayor:

• Why create a new authority?
• Will the money raised be used strictly for mass transit improvements?
• Why aren't there exemptions for people who drive into the designated area for serious medical treatment?
• How will residents of the congestion zone be charged for moving their cars for alternate side parking or for leaving the city for the day?

Finally, Glick isn't convinced that the Bloomberg Administration has suddenly gotten religion on traffic reduction. The Administration, she writes, "has in fact been irresponsible and disingenuous, because, after years of ignoring more simple congestion mitigation efforts, they are trying to rush through congestion pricing legislation with almost no study or debate." She wonders why the Mayor isn't doing more to control parking permit abuse among government employees, a problem that plagues her Lower Manhattan district.

You can read Glick's letter, in its entirety, after the jump...

From: NY State Assembly Member Deborah Glick
To: A Constituent Who Supports Congestion Pricing
Subject: Re: Support a Cleaner New York City
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007

Dear constituent,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding congestion pricing. I have long been concerned with traffic congestion in my district (which is among the worst in the city) and have been involved with a number of efforts to mitigate congestion. I have also been concerned with growing asthma rates in the city and well aware of how traffic and other environmental factors have exacerbated the problem.

For the past two months, there has been a general discussion of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal in the press. There have also been direct mail appeals urging New Yorkers to contact their state legislators, resulting in calls to my office advocating for "clean air," as well as calls against "congestion pricing." These disparate messages reflect the lack of clarity and specificity with which congestion pricing has been discussed.

Unfortunately, I have also been confronted with a dearth of information regarding the Mayor's proposal, as have my colleagues who were looking closely at the proposal and trying to get answers to very specific concerns about how the program would be implemented. Regrettably, there were too few answers from the City Administration about our legitimate concerns. It was because of the numerous questions that were raised, but not sufficiently answered, that the Assembly did not vote on congestion pricing. In fact, even the State Senate did not vote on the issue when they convened in Albany on July 16th supposedly with the understanding that a vote could be taken.

Though I am fully supportive of the need to reduce traffic congestion and improve our air quality, I cannot vote on legislation without a sufficient understanding of its impacts, particularly when it will substantially impact neighborhoods throughout New York City as well as the entire tri-state region. As a responsible legislator, I must look beyond press releases and public relations campaigns and vote on the merits of the actual legislation. Often, legislation purportedly aims to address an important issue, but the legislation as crafted is not the best way of doing so. I had too many unanswered questions and found too many flaws in the congestion pricing legislation to be supportive of it in the form that was presented to the Legislature by Mayor Bloomberg. While I appreciate
the goals of congestion pricing, I do not appreciate the Mayor's effort to stampede the Legislature into a vote on congestion pricing without an appropriate vetting of the myriad issues generated by the proposal itself.

For example, the proposal purported to reduce asthma, especially for children. However, many communities just outside of the congestion pricing zone have significant asthma rates and it is possible that those communities might have to contend with increased vehicular traffic as commuters driving into the city attempt to park in these neighborhoods outside of the zone. So far, no environmental impact statement has been prepared to address this and other concerns. By embarking on such a dramatic change without this important review, the Legislature would set a very questionable and dangerous precedent. For many of us in the environmental and preservation movements, we rely heavily on the legal requirement for environmental impact statements. I will not act to undermine this critical tool used by communities to defend themselves against inappropriate actions and development threats. While I am not surprised that the City Administration has not been concerned with ensuring a proper environmental review, I have been disappointed that so many in the environmental movement were willing to abandon this essential process.

Furthermore, there are numerous issues raised but left unanswered by the Mayor's proposal, such as: Why create a new authority to receive the increased fines and new fees for entering the designated zone when we already have a mass transit authority? Will the money raised be used strictly for mass transit improvements? If there are exemptions from fees for taxis and the black car services, why aren't there exemptions for people who drive into the designated area specifically for chemotherapy or other regular serious medical treatment since they are unable to use mass transit? How will residents of the congestion zone be charged for moving their cars for alternate side parking or for leaving the city for the day?

While we all agree that traffic has become impossible and that the additional construction of so many buildings will only bring more people and congestion into Manhattan, there is no consensus on whether the proposal would reduce the congestion, or simply raise revenue. One aspect of the plan would allow for auto commuters who paid a toll to have that toll deducted from the congestion fee. For example, a New Jersey driver who pays a $6.00 toll to enter New York City would have that toll deducted from the $8.00 congestion fee, making the additional cost to New Jersey drivers $2.00 a day. Many legislators do not believe that this will discourage any drivers from driving their cars into the city or encourage them to take mass transit.

These are just a few of the issues for which there were no clear answers. In my humble opinion, it would be irresponsible to vote for any legislation that generated so many significant questions without getting any answers. The City Administration has in fact been irresponsible and disingenuous, because, after years of ignoring
more simple congestion mitigation efforts, they are trying to rush through congestion pricing legislation with almost no study or debate. Among the non-legislative changes the City could have implemented are dramatically reducing the number and the abuse of City issued parking permits, enforcing existing laws about blocking the traffic box, and enforcing no standing restrictions, which, when violated, force trucks to double park in order to make deliveries. To illustrate, the estimated number of City parking permits is between 10,000 and 20,000. While there are many legitimate uses for these permits, many are misused at times and greater enforcement and perhaps a significant reduction in the number issued may be appropriate. The City has also just recently started to focus on promoting alternative modes of transportation, such as bike riding, and they have largely not been involved in efforts to promote mass transit.

While none of these strategies alone would solve New York's congestion problems, a comprehensive, broad-based review of all the strategies that New York City could employ to reduce congestion is sorely needed. Since many parts of our transit system are at capacity, we need to be certain that the facilities necessary for a shift to mass transportation are either in place, or substantially on their way to being a reality. For example, it is crucial that there be adequate parking near commuter rail stations and certain subway stations outside of Manhattan where there are few or no bus connections.

Instead of rushing through congestion pricing, a commission on congestion mitigation must be convened to examine all the possible options and combinations of options to best address New York City's congestion challenge. Accordingly, I believe that the Legislature was wise to pass a statute creating this commission and enabling us to draw down any funds that the federal government might award New York City. Interestingly, while the City Administration insisted that the Legislature must act immediately in order for us to receive $500 million in federal funds, it always seemed more than optimistic to assume that we would get this amount- the federal government had only a $1.2 billion funding pot from which it would give funding to 5 selected cities. While I wish we could get the lion's share of federal funds to address congestion, there is no evidence that the Bush administration planned to depart from their standard practice of awarding New York City much less than our deserved share of funds.

In closing, I wish to thank you once again for contacting me on this critical issue of concern to all of us. Improving the health and quality of life for people living in neighborhoods plagued by congestion, ensuring better mass transit, and improving the environment have and will continue to be priorities for me. However, I believe we are on our way to determining the best possible strategies for addressing these challenges. If you would like to receive further legislative and policy updates regarding health and environmental issues such as congestion pricing, please respond accordingly to this email and we will email you periodic updates about these issues.

Sincerely,
Deborah J. Glick
Assemblymember

In his radio address this weekend, Mayor Bloomberg urged state lawmakers to "put aside their competing interests and come together" on the issue of congestion pricing. "To leave this half a billion dollars just sitting on the table would be absolutely ridiculous." In response, Brodsky told the New York Times:

We don't have any competing interests. We're interested only in the public interest, and the first thing the public interest requires is someone to actually look at the mayor's plan, fairly and thoroughly.

Yet, over the last five years Assembly Member Brodsky has accepted at least $16,700 in campaign contributions from parking garage interests, according to the New York State Board of Elections. Brodsky's parking industry contributions far exceed those of any other state legislator (though Queens City Council Member David Weprin leads the pack with his $20,500 $40,650 haul). Specifically, Brodsky's contributions have come from the Metropolitan Parking Association and the Mallah family, the owner of several parking companies and sometimes referred to as New York City's "parking royalty."

The Mallah family has interests in several parking corporations including Merit Parking, Mallah Parking Corporation, Advance Parking, and Icon Parking. Shelly Mallah is also associated with New York City's Metropolitan Parking Association and has made campaign contributions to its political action committee.

Vincent Petraro, the executive director of the Metropolitan Parking Association, a trade group representing about 800 lots and garages in New York City, has served as an intermediary for political campaign contributions for Sheldon Mallah, according to the NYC Campaign Finance Board. Petraro is also a board member of Queens Chamber of Commerce and chairman of its Legislative Advocacy Committee.

Parking industry contributions to Richard Brodsky:

$1,000	12/01/05	Sheldon Mallah
$1,000	12/01/05	Sandra Mallah
$500	3/28/05	Metro Parking Association
$400	3/25/04	Sandra Mallah
$500	5/20/04	Sheldon Mallah
$1,000	5/20/04	Sandra Mallah
$2,000	4/29/04	Sandra Mallah
$800	3/25/04	Sheldon Mallah
$500	12/30/03	Sheldon Mallah
$1,000	12/30/03	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	6/26/03	Sheldon Mallah
$2,000	6/23/03	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	3/03/03	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	11/22/02	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	8/26/02	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	8/26/02	Sandra Mallah
$1,000	5/06/02	Sandra Mallah

TOTAL: $16,700

How do Brodsky's parking industry contributions compare? No other state legislator even comes close to the levels of contributions received by Brodsky from the Mallahs and the Metropolitan Parking Association since 2002.

Marty Golden	$1,500
Denny Farrell	$1,000
Sheldon Silver	$1,000
Joe Lentol	$750
John Sabini	$500
Danny O’Donnell	$500
Rory Lancman	$500
Michael Cusick	$250
Mark Weprin	$250

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.

It may not be a significant amount in relative terms, but since taking office in 2002 Weprin has accepted at least $20,500 in campaign contributions from parking garage owners and operators, almost all of them with facilities in Manhattan. During the 2003 reporting cycle alone, Weprin collected over $14,000 from the parking garage lobby, with three garage owners contributing the maximum permitted by law.

The most recent contributions on file date to this year. In other words, as Weprin campaigns against congestion pricing, parking garage owners are writing checks to his campaign committee.

The latest edition of the Queens Courier features two anti-pricing editorials: one from the paper's editors, and the other by Weprin, who, responding to a pro-pricing argument from the Partnership for New York City's Kathryn Wylde, refers to congestion pricing as a "tax" 10 times in 500 words. Yet he offers no alternative solutions on how to pay for the mass transit expansion he and other pricing opponents purport to favor. Coincidentally, during the 2005 campaign finance reporting cycle, Weprin received $100 from Vicki Schneps -- publisher of the Queens Courier, as well as Queensborough, newsletter of the ill-informed propaganda machine that is the Queens Chamber of Commerce.

Where does your council member stand? From whom does s/he accept contributions? Follow the money.

Foes of congestion pricing marshalled by the Queens Chamber of Commerce held a press conference yesterday at which several politicians from the borough took a stand against the mayor's plan. According to a press release provided by the chamber, City Council Finance Chair David Weprin called the proposal unnecessary: "I don't think City Hall understands that another unfair tax which would hurt working class people is not only uncalled for, but also unnecessary to reduce traffic. Before we tax people more we should first consider trying some simple traffic mitigation alternatives to reduce congestion."

The release also quoted Councilmember Tony Avella: "Until the City provides adequate mass transportation services, congestion pricing is just another tax on working and middle class families and small business. Everyone agrees that we need to address traffic congestion problems throughout the city, but the first step has to be improving mass transit."

Of course, Bloomberg himself, in the Sunday speech the Queens Chamber was protesting, said that mass transit in the outer boroughs would have to be improved before congestion pricing went into effect. In that speech, he clearly stated: "We know that service to many areas is not what it should be. That's why, before implementing congestion pricing we'll implement a range of mass transit improvements to our least-served neighborhoods."

The Queens Chamber has been in the forefront of the anti-congestion-pricing battle for some time now, releasing a study in March 2006 called "A Cure Worse than the Disease? How London's 'Congestion Pricing' System Could Hurt New York City's Economy." A group called the Citywide Coalition for Traffic Relief, including the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, the NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign, Transportation Alternatives and the Citizens Committee for New York City, has released "Debunking the Attack on Congestion Pricing," an analysis of the Queens Chamber's report that refutes its major points (download it here):

The attempt to disregard congestion pricing as a potentially viable traffic mitigation measure is based on a study commissioned last year by the Queens Chamber of Commerce, performed by Appleseed Consulting. Even a cursory examination of this study finds it to be biased and deeply flawed.

The Queens Chamber of Commerce study erects a draconian "straw man" congestion charging scenario that is neither based on London's system nor on any scenario that has been proposed for New York City.... In supporting its spurious claim that congestion pricing will result in a net negative impact on the City's economy, the study relies, among other things, on assumptions about how this policy will impact vehicle and person trips into the relevant parts of Manhattan.

Here are the basic points in the Coalition's dissection of the study:

• The most fundamental assertion in the study -- that 1 in 7 people who would not drive under congestion pricing would choose not to visit New York City at all -- is unfounded.
  
• The study's fundamental figures are misleading and incorrect.
• The study is allegedly based on London's experience, but the numbers it uses are inaccurate.
  
• The study erroneously assumes a congestion fee is imposed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
• The study ignores the fact that 30% of all vehicle traffic in the CBD is through traffic, which has no economic benefit to the CBD.
• The study assumes that business and leisure travelers -- who currently spend hundreds of dollars on each visit -- are deterred by a congestion charge that is less than the cost of one hour of parking in most Manhattan garages.
• The study considers reduced spending on tolls, parking and other activities as losses to the economy without considering the economic benefit of what the congestion charge could be used for (i.e., transit improvements).
• The study relies on national averages, without correction for local conditions.
• The study tallies benefits of congestion pricing even less effectively than costs.

Photo: latca/Flickr

Note that this is not an introduction of a new piece of legislation. It is just a resolution -- essentially nothing more than a toothless proclamation, a bid for attention. While I'm hesitant to give them that attention, the Queens Chamber report is such a shoddy piece of work compared to Bruce Schaller and the Partnership for New York City's congestion pricing studies, it is hard to resist giving you a peek:

By Council Members Fidler, Weprin, Avella, Gonzalez, Katz, Martinez and Nelson

Whereas, In response to a well-recognized problem of traffic congestion in cities, certain solutions have been proposed to control the public demand for transportation; and

Whereas, Solutions to this problem include providing incentives and disincentives to control traffic congestion; and

Whereas, The incentive method attempts to persuade more drivers to use public transportation by making public transportation more attractive, while the disincentive method attempts to deter people from driving by imposing a price or making it difficult for them to drive; and

Whereas, The City of London is currently executing the disincentive method by mandating a $14 charge, or a congestion price, for entering London's central business district, and as a result, various New York City advocate groups have called for the City of New York to also adopt congestion pricing; and

Whereas, The Queens Chamber of Commerce issued a report in February 2006, entitled "A Cure Worse than the Disease?: How London's 'Congestion Pricing' System Could Hurt New York City's Economy" (the "Congestion Pricing report"), indicating that despite the relatively steep congestion charge, London only experienced a 2% decline in the number of people entering that city after the charge's imposition; and

Whereas, The Congestion Pricing report also indicated that a congestion pricing system would result in 40,000 fewer people entering the Manhattan central business district each weekday, resulting in a $2.7 billion loss in economic output; and

Whereas, That same report additionally ascertained that working-class and middle-class car commuters who hold jobs based in Manhattan, and small to mid-size businesses from Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx which need to send employees to Manhattan on a frequent basis, would be inequitably affected by congestion pricing; and

Whereas, The coalition "NYC Congestion Tax-Free" strongly opposes any form of congestion pricing, maintaining that such a policy is a tax and an unfair burden on the outer borough commuters; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York calls upon the Mayor of New York City to oppose the institution of any form of congestion pricing.Res. No. 774