If Governor Paterson looks to revive pricing via the Ravitch Commission, as is being reported today, he could very well lose the support of the Senate under Skelos, who, unlike Bruno, is an avowed opponent of the concept.

Skelos voted against the formation of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission in 2007, though Bruno supported the move, which was widely seen as a concession to lawmakers who were skeptical of the city's original proposal. (Even ardent pricing foe Assemblyman Richard Brodsky voted to go ahead with the commission.) As late as April of this year, Skelos had this to say at a "virtual town hall" meeting:

I am ... opposed to congestion pricing and have already voted against it once in the State Senate. It's another form of a commuter tax and will place an unfair burden on middle-class Long Islanders who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Ironically, pricing's chances in the Senate could improve if Democrats assume the majority in the fall. Though he didn't make much noise about it, Minority Leader Malcolm Smith reportedly favored the plan.

The Assembly, of course, is another matter entirely.

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, who is holding a rally this evening for better G train service, is drawing fire from transit advocates because of his opposition to congestion pricing. Streetsblog commenters plan to confront him at the rally. "Simply because one did not support the mayor's version of congestion pricing does not mean we shouldn't do everything possible to improve mass transit," Jeffries says.

"The mayor's version." One supposes this leaves open the possibility that there is some version of congestion pricing that Hakeem Jeffries wouldn't have opposed. But despite their attempts to pawn off the coming transit finance crisis on Mayor Bloomberg, Assembly Democrats killed a version of congestion pricing that differed markedly from the mayor's original plan. The final bill reflected the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, which, lest anyone forget, was created with Albany's blessing.

On Monday, April 7, Sheldon Silver walked out of a closed door meeting of State Assembly Democrats and announced congestion pricing was dead. Never mind that New York City's mayor and City Council supported the plan along with the governor, the State Senate and an unprecedented coalition of business, labor, environmental and civic groups. Like so much else in Albany, the decision was made in secret, without a debate, a vote or even a record of the proceedings.

Until congestion pricing came around, I never paid all that much attention to Albany. Sure, I knew about the sex and graft scandals, the "three men in a room," and the Brennan Center reports showing New York's government has more in common with the old Soviet Politburo than America's 49 other state legislatures. I knew "dysfunctional" was the official adjective to describe Albany. But the dysfunction never seemed to impinge on my own life in any immediate, tangible way. Until congestion pricing.

I was really looking forward to seeing motorists pay to drive into Lower Manhattan. While I understood the importance of $354 million in federal aid, $491 million per year in revenue for transit and fewer kids growing up with asthma, this wasn't what pumped me up. What I liked most about congestion pricing was the fact that the people who make life in New York City most miserable -- the armada of horn-honking, exhaust-spewing, space-hogging, oil-guzzling, climate change-inducing motorheads that rolls through my neighborhood every day, to and from the free East River bridges, were finally going to have to pay for the privilege.

Assembly Democrats gave lots of reasons why they couldn't support pricing, few of which dealt with substance and most of which boiled down to their feeling that an arrogant, imperious billionaire mayor and his elitist supporters were trying to stick it to New York City's poor and middle class. No matter that New York City's poor and middle class already pay a fare to ride the subway and bus and that the number one propagator of this populist claptrap was Richard Brodsky, a Westchester Assemblyman who represents the region's wealthiest Manhattan-bound car commuters, average annual income, $176,231. At least Brodsky did a good job standing up for his constituents. That's a hell of a lot more than Joan Millman, Deborah Glick, Hakeem Jeffries, Daniel O'Donnel, Jonathan Bing and the rest of the city's Assembly delegation can say for itself.

The moment I realized pricing was doomed in the legislature was when Denny Farrell, a 34-year Assembly veteran, stood up before the Congestion Mitigation Commission, of which he was a member, and delivered an impassioned speech against toll booths on the bridges between Manhattan and the Bronx. Toll booths, Farrell said, would "freeze all of northern Manhattan in gridlock" on Yankees game nights. The speech took place not at the first Commission hearing in September but at the penultimate meeting in January. Somehow, incredibly, Farrell managed to sit through four months of meetings and hearings without realizing that congestion pricing fees are collected electronically; toll booths were not part of the plan. This was the guy who was assigned to bring the work of the Commission back to his colleagues in the Assembly and he either wasn't paying attention or simply didn't care.

During Commission meetings, Farrell frequently shared his experiences driving and parking in the city. Invariably, his personal transportation anecdotes never involved a subway, bus, bike or even a sidewalk. It was a reminder that while New York state legislators are paid a middle class salary (by New York City standards, at least), they are still members of New York City's other elite -- the free riding class. Their unlimited parking privilege allows them to drive wherever and whenever they want. From their windshield perspective, the city is a transportation problem to be solved for cars. Ultimately, the biggest hurdle congestion pricing faced was the simple fact that the people required to enact the legislation were the ones who stood to pay the most because of it. You know that beleaguered middle class driver the Assembly kept talking about? He was a state legislator.

If any good has come of the Assembly's failure to act on congestion pricing, it's simply this: A new generation of citizen activists got to see up close and personal how broken New York State government is and how badly it's in need of fixing. Assembly members come up for election every two years and are often ushered in to office by as few as 5,000 votes. September 2008 ought to be the last time any of these legislators have the pleasure of seeing only their own name on a Democratic primary ballot.

By Aaron Naparstek. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Transportation Alternatives.  

Streetsblog readers will recall that congestion pricing looked to be dead and gone last July 17 and then a couple of days later, after the federal deadline had been missed, the mayor's political people pulled off the deal that created the Congestion Mitigation Commission process. A dig through Streetsblog's July 2007 archives tells the story.

So, who knows? The state Legislature still has to produce a budget. They still need to address a multi-billion dollar transit deficit. They still want pay raises.

• Re-instating the $4 intrazonal fee
• Exempting drivers who cross into Manhattan below 60th Street but only drive on the periphery
  

If these changes were to be applied, against the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, it would result in higher administrative costs and more surveillance cameras. Although Brennan identified himself as a pricing supporter when the idea was first floated last summer, at this point his bill seems to undermine much of the approval process to date, including the contributions of the TCMC and the City Council's vote on Monday in favor of a home rule message.

Brennan alerted his colleagues in the Assembly to the new bill this morning. His office told me it is too early to say whether the bill enjoys more support among Assembly Democrats, who are currently discussing pricing behind closed doors, than the version that the City Council approved. As of this writing, the bill has no co-sponsors.

UPDATE: The new bill would also require congestion pricing to come up for renewal in three years and prevent the MTA from issuing bonds backed by pricing revenue.

Brennan's full press release:

Brennan Congestion Pricing Bill Authorizes Plan as an Experiment;
Exerts Full City Council Control over Residential Permit Parking;

Retains Elements of Original Proposal that Required Entrance into the Business District Before a Charge is Imposed

State Assemblymember Jim Brennan (D - Brooklyn) has introduced a congestion pricing bill. The new proposal takes a variety of ideas that have been advanced and blends them together to create a better plan, while dropping or changing several proposals advanced by the Traffic Mitigation Commission.

Key to this proposal involves authorizing congestion pricing as a three-year experiment, similar to the concept advanced by Mayor Bloomberg last summer. Authorizing the congestion pricing program as an experiment would assure that the MTA does not go into debt by selling bonds with congestion pricing revenue pledged toward the new debt, only to find that the program is unsuccessful in deterring traffic congestion. The congestion pricing revenue, estimated at $500 million per year, would still be directed to the MTA capital program.

The new bill retains two concepts advanced in the original Mayoral proposal from 2007. First, it would retain the $4 charge for auto trips originating within the zone. Short trips would be exempt. The proposal also only charges drivers crossing bridges and tunnels into Manhattan if they enter the zone. Under the Traffic Mitigation proposal just supported by the City Council, drivers who cross bridges and tunnels in to Manhattan but bypass the zone are still charged $8.

Another aspect of the Brennan bill would require full City Council approval of residential permit parking plans. This would assure that individual neighborhoods would not be able to create exclusive zones without the consent of all of the City government's elected representatives. New aspects of the Council-supported program, such as a Port Authority contribution, a low-income tax credit, and prevailing wage, are included in the proposal, as well as a new compliance requirement for the MTA for the State's MWBE program.

Now that Paterson has announced his support for the plan, a recent letter to a constituent seems to indicate that Kellner has had a change of heart. Rather than oppose the bill as introduced, Kellner says he will support it while "working to make it an even better bill."

The assemblyman's sticking points include exemptions for the disabled, whether or not they own a car; exemptions for hospital patients; surcharges for drivers who don't have E-ZPass; and "fee equity for New Jersey drivers."

The full text of the letter follows the jump.

Thank you for contacting me to let me know of your support for the congestion pricing plan as recommended by the New York State Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission on January 31, 2008.

I agree with you on this important issue, and I look forward to voting for the Governor's congestion pricing bill when it comes to the Assembly floor.

I am particularly proud that three changes that I testified in favor of made it into the draft bill that has been submitted to the State Legislature: 1. Residential parking permits; 2. Dedication of any and all congestion pricing revenue to funding capital improvements for our mass transit system, and; 3. Exemptions for people with disabilities who have DMV-issued disabled license plates.

Until the bill actually comes to a vote, I will be working to make it an even better bill - because although we need congestion pricing, there are still significant problems.

*People with Disabilities*

The bill contains an exemption for drivers with disabled plates, but does not include exemptions for people with disabilities who use accessible taxis or those people with disabilities who have SVIP placards (about 5000 New Yorkers have these placards; they are issued by the New York City Department of Transportation to people with disabilities who do not own their own cars but are frequently transported by another person, usually a family member).

*Patients at Hospitals Within the Zone*

The bill contains no exemptions for drivers traveling to and from Manhattan hospitals, several of which are located on the Upper East Side.

*Low-Income Drivers*

I believe that a tax credit for low-income drivers is appropriate and in line with New York's tradition of progressive taxation (those who can least afford to pay should not be taxed as much as those who can afford to pay more). $8 is more of a burden for a family that is low-income than for a family with a larger household income because low-income drivers are less like to have EZ-Pass. I believe it is unfair to subject these families to an additional $1 surcharge for not having EZ-Pass, on top of other related penalties.

*New Jersey** Needs To Pay Its Fair Share*

I also believe that we need to see more efforts towards fee equity for New Jersey drivers. The current plan exempts New Jersey drivers from paying the congestion pricing fee, leaving them no incentive to park their cars and take mass transit. Out of state drivers should not be getting what amounts to a discount and leaving New Yorkers to pay the lion's share of this tax.

Last year, I sent a survey to all registered voters in my district and I compiled a report from those findings. In total there were over 400 respondents. 64 percent of residents indicated their support for some form of congestion pricing, but most had reservations about some of the details of the plan, including many of the issues I discussed in this letter. My report as well as my corresponding testimony in front of the Commission on January 16, 2008 are available for you to read on my Assembly website (go to www.assembly.state.ny.us
<http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/> and click on my name, there are links to the testimony and report there).

Congestion pricing is an important and complicated undertaking, but one that I believe is incredibly important for the environmental, health, and economic future of the entire region. I'm glad to have your support on this important issue.

Thank you again for contacting me. Your opinions and feedback are important to me and I hope that you will continue to share them.

Very truly yours,

Micah Z. Kellner
Assembly Member

"Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns of the residents of New York City and its suburbs: The need to reduce congestion on our streets and roads, and thereby reduce pollution, and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvement," Paterson said.

Paterson also said that by introducing the bill, the City Council and the Legislature will be able to "examine the details" and "make an informed judgment" going forward.

It has yet to be determined if the Paterson bill differs at all from the bill that surfaced in Albany earlier this week. However, highlights of the legislation described in the governor's statement match the contents of the earlier bill. The full statement, as well as press releases from Mayor Bloomberg and pro-pricing groups, after the jump.

GOVERNOR PATERSON ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN

Governor David A. Paterson announced today that he has submitted a Governor’s program bill, that follows the recommendations of the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission report of January 31, 2008 to allow for the City Council and State Legislature to consider a bill that meets the requirements of the United States Department of Transportation Urban Partnership Agreement, which contributes $354 million in federal funds.

“Congestion Pricing addresses two urgent concerns of the residents of New York City and its suburbs: the need to reduce congestion on our streets and roads, and thereby reduce pollution and global warming; and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvements,” Governor Paterson said. “We expect that revenue from the Congestion Pricing plan will support more than $4.5 billion in needed capital improvements for mass transit and meaningfully reduce traffic into the Central Business District of Manhattan. Before the constructive process of deliberation proceeds in both the City Council and the State Legislature, transparency requires that the public fully see what the system envisioned by the Commission will entail. While Commission Report highlighted other issues which need to be resolved, introducing this bill allows the City Council and Legislature to examine the details of the proposal and make an informed judgment on the Congestion Pricing program.”

Highlights of the bill include the following provisions recommended by the Commission:

The Congestion Pricing zone would include any roadways in Manhattan south of and inclusive of 60th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for certain public holidays.

Establish the fee as recommended by the Commission, including a surcharge on taxis and livery vehicles.

Eliminate the Manhattan long-term parking tax discount for vehicles parked within the zone.

Set out privacy protocols based on existing EZ Pass privacy controls.

Provide exemptions for authorized emergency vehicles; safety, traffic and parking control, and inspection vehicles; sanitation vehicles; school vehicles; and privately operated over-the-road buses.

Prescribe a residential parking permit program.

Lay out the environmental review process for Congestion Pricing which follows the Commission’s recommendation.

The City will oversee a monitoring program for traffic, air quality, noise, parking and other environmental impacts and release annual reports; a preliminary report will be available to the public within six months of the operation date.

The funds raised by the fee will be used, after deducting for the cost of operations, to support the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) capital plan, which was released at the end of February. Priority for funding will be for areas in need underserved by transit.

Capital expenditures will be subject to approval by the MTA’s capital program review board, and a representative of the New York City Council Speaker will have the same rights and privileges of the board members appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Senate Minority Leader and the Assembly Minority Leader.

For capital expenses derived from Congestion Pricing, the MTA will follow all legally applicable prevailing wage laws.

Any increase in parking fees by the City, as recommended by the Commission, will go into a “transit enhancement fund” to be used exclusively for additional transit, pedestrian, bicycle and parking management improvements, including ferries.

The statute passed last July that established the Traffic Mitigation Commission, requires the Mayor to request the State Legislature to consider the plan where such request has been approved by the City Council by a majority vote on a resolution. It is expected that the City Council will consider such a resolution shortly.

Press release from the Mayor's office:

STATEMENT BY MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG ON GOVERNOR PATERSON'S SUPPORT OF CONGESTION PRICING

"Today, Governor Paterson has demonstrated true leadership by submitting a  congestion pricing bill to the Legislature that will meet all of the objectives we've set – cutting traffic and reducing pollution to improve our economy and public health, and raising revenue to fund much needed projects included in the MTA Capital Plan.  The bill is a giant step forward, and its timely passage will ensure that New York gets $354 million in federal money that we've been promised.  Those funds will allow us to make immediate transit improvements.  We will work with the Governor and our partners in the State Legislature and the City Council to address outstanding issues - including reducing the impact on lower income drivers, and concerns about commuters who use Port Authority crossings contributing to the MTA Capital plan. Together, I'm certain we can pass a bill that will improve the lives of New Yorkers."

Statement from Michael O’Loughlin, Director of the Campaign for New York’s Future:

“At a time when New York urgently needs enlightened leaders to take courageous action on big challenges, Governor Paterson has today boldly demonstrated his dedication to a better future for New York.  By introducing legislation to enact congestion pricing for better transit, he is advancing a truly historic and visionary plan to reduce gridlock, improve the bus and subway system 7.5 million New Yorkers count on, and clean the air we all breathe.  This is an important step forward, especially for the millions of working-class New Yorkers who overwhelmingly rely on mass transit as their sole means of commute and daily travel.  With so much at stake, we are confident that our city and state leaders will join Governor Paterson in working together during the critical days ahead to resolve any remaining issues so that New York can receive $354 million federal dollars for immediate transit improvements and begin building the transit system we need to keep New York moving forward in the 21st century. Thank you, Governor Paterson.”

In related news, the Drum Major Institute released a statement today urging the City Council to pass pricing because it benefits New York's middle class. Here's an excerpt:

With the New York City Council poised to vote on congestion pricing on Monday, March 24th, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (“DMI”), a New York-based think tank dedicated to promoting the interests of current and aspiring middle class Americans, once again reminded the Council that “standing up for congestion pricing and standing for the interests of average, hard working New Yorkers are one and the same.”

Last year, DMI issued a report entitled “Congestion Pricing: Good Policy For New York’s Middle Class,” [PDF] which concluded congestion pricing would greatly benefit current and aspiring middle-class New Yorkers in a multitude of important ways.  After Mayor Bloomberg’s original plan was revised by the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission, of which DMI Executive Director Andrea Batista Schlesinger was a member, Ms. Schlesinger said, “I am delighted with the results of the Commission’s work.  What started out as an excellent plan has evolved into something even better.  Literally millions of average New Yorkers will benefit significantly from the adoption of congestion pricing.  It would be a tragedy for the City and State not to pass it.”

The measure would charge drivers without E-ZPass an extra dollar for travel into the zone, giving them 48 hours to pay the $9 fee to the city. If they miss the deadline, the fee would rise to $65; if they fail to pay, they could be fined up to $115. The plan also calls for the creation of a mass transit enhancement fund, financed by any increases in parking meter fees within the congestion zone, to pay for bike paths, bus rapid transit systems and other items.

Streetsblog has been reviewing the bill and turned up some interesting language on environmental review, in what is clearly a response to the argument of Richard Brodsky and others who claim the process to date has circumvented SEQRA requirements. The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission recommended adhering to established principles of environment review, and now we are seeing the particulars of how that would work.

The bill basically lifts suggestions from the TCMC's final report [PDF], situating the commission's previous work within the SEQRA framework. For instance, the 14 public hearings held by the TCMC constitute the initial public comment phase, and the interim report to the commission serves as the alternative analysis. Still to come: The city will hold public hearings on the scope of environmental review, draft a scoping document outlining any adverse impacts, and release a final Environmental Impact Statement prior to the date pricing goes into effect. (You can read all about it starting on page 18 of this PDF.)

A related section provides for ongoing measurement of environmental impacts, including "traffic, air quality, noise, and parking." In what could develop into a New York version of London's yearly congestion charging study, the city would release an annual report on these impacts.

Another interesting tidbit: Diplomatic vehicles, pending approval from the State Department, would be exempt from the charge, so we might not get to see if the British ambassador will pay to drive, unlike his counterpart in London.

Stay tuned; we'll be posting updates on any other nuggets that may surface.

The article tells how this troika came up with the plan to seed pricing in five pilot cities, and delves into their ulterior motives:

For Gribbin, Duvall and Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, the goal is not just to combat congestion but to upend the traditional way transportation projects are funded in this country. They believe that tolls paid by motorists, not tax dollars, should be used to construct and maintain roads.

They and other political appointees have spent the latter part of President Bush's two terms laboring behind the scenes to shrink the federal role in road-building and public transportation.

On the face of it, the story meshes with some of the anti-pricing arguments New Yorkers have been hearing, especially from Representative Anthony Weiner, who has called pricing a conservative ploy to de-fund federal support for transit projects. That position has drawn ridicule from Mayor Bloomberg as he stumps for pricing, captured in the Observer's account of yesterday's Crain's New York Business Breakfast Forum:

“I have nothing against any one congressman [but] that is one of the stupider things I’ve ever heard said. Forget the fact that he’s one of the congressmen who’s supposed to get the money for us. The Democrats control -- his party controls Congress -- what’s he talking about? Number two, by that argument, we should cut all the taxes, which some people would like, and then just sit here and wait to give us all the money back.

The Post story has already provided fodder for press accounts favorable to Weiner, like this Daily Politics post, which quotes the Queens congressman:

"I'm interested in solutions, not name calling. I respect the Mayor, but I don't think the evidence supports trusting President Bush and his cabinet here. In Washington the Administration tries to cut money to roads and to cut mass transit, and then they come to New York City and say they won't. I'm concerned that New Yorkers will get the short end of the stick." 

On close examination, however, the Post article omits several details that would have led to a different conclusion, namely: There is no inherent connection between pricing and reduced funding for transit.

To begin with, the article fails to note that pricing enjoys widespread support from transportation policy experts who, unlike the officials it profiles, believe pedestrians, bikes, and transit should have priority over cars. In New York, we've also seen green groups like the League of Conservation Voters and Environmental Defense rally to support pricing. And the two cities to initiate pricing most recently -- Stockholm and "Red Ken" Livingstone's London -- did so under left-leaning leadership.

Clearly, there are (at least) two ways to tell the story of congestion pricing: one is to say traffic will be mitigated by allocating scarce road space more efficiently; the other narrative is about reclaiming city streets from the private auto, making motorists pay the cost of their own pollution while funding alternatives that make it easier for people to get around without a car.

These two ways of viewing pricing are not mutually exclusive. However, the Post story shows how the Bush administration has conflated the first narrative with an anti-transit agenda, and with their belief in privatizing roads. But the article neglects what's been going on in New York. Here, the advocates pushing pricing forward subscribe mostly to the second view, and the City and the Traffic Mitigation Commission have proposed using the revenue to support mass transit and livable streets.

Yes, local pricing advocates want the $354 million that Peters has been dangling in front of New York. But so what? In ten months she'll be gone, and so will Gribbin and Duvall and their agenda. The real meat of transportation policy for the next five years, the highway re-authorization bill, will be decided after they leave. Congestion pricing could play a significant part in that bill, and it could go hand in hand with more money for bikes and transit if the story gets told right.

Rather than letting the Bush administration frame the issue, our elected leadership -- especially people like Anthony Weiner and the rest of New York's congressional delegation -- needs to push the Livable Streets narrative of congestion pricing down in DC. Who has the vision to step out in front of this issue and define it as truly progressive transportation policy? Elected officials from Detroit and Phoenix certainly aren't going to do it.

Constituents of Lower Manhattan Assembly Member Deborah Glick have a lot to gain from congestion pricing, but they should not assume their representative will vote for the plan once (or if) it reaches Albany.

Meeting with a group of advocates who traveled from the city yesterday, Glick reeled off a list of grievances, both with pricing and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whom she described as an "out of touch billionaire."

Lawmakers who had issues with pricing as proposed last year were greeted with "arrogance and dismissiveness," according to Glick. "We asked a lot of questions," she said, "we got no answers." Even after innumerable public hearings and the months-long Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission process, which she is in part responsible for, Glick says communication from the city is "only slightly better" now.

If the Bloomberg administration really wanted to raise money, Glick said, it would not offer so many tax breaks for developers. Instead, the mayor is more concerned with building luxury high rises for the wealthy, who she said will constitute the majority of new residents expected to settle in the city over the next two decades. Glick believes the original congestion pricing plan was more about Bloomberg's legacy than a workable program to reduce traffic and fund transit.

But enough about the mayor. Here's what Glick thinks of congestion pricing today:

• The toll credit for New Jersey commuters offers them "no disincentive" to drive.
• The effort to implement pricing without an Environmental Impact Statement is part of a larger plan to undermine reviews for future development.
• The city could have taken 100,000 cars off the streets over the past year via placard reform, had it wished.
• New York could do without 1,000 yellow cabs. And all those double-parked limos.
• Congestion pricing is "lacking in thoughtfulness about real issues," like exemptions for doctor visits, and for health care employees who work from 4 p.m. to midnight, arriving at work too early to avoid the congestion charge and getting off too late to rely on train service.
• The proposed credit card based payment system discriminates against the poor, who will not be able to pay congestion fees as conveniently and who will be most vulnerable to "disgusting and outrageous" late charges.

Despite her misgivings, which don't seem to have changed much since last year, Glick still describes herself as "decidedly on the fence." And unlike most legislators, who -- judging from the chatter among advocates who spent Tuesday working the halls of power in Albany -- don't want to talk about pricing, Glick spoke at length and in detail.

"It's totally in my self-interest to get more money for mass transit," she said.

Yesterday we noted that District 1 City Council Member Alan Gerson was the only Manhattan representative to indicate that he would vote against the congestion pricing plan in its current form, according to an "unofficial roll call" conducted by the New York Times. We contacted Gerson's office to find out why, given the upsides for a district in which 79 percent of households are car-free, which is saddled with chronic gridlock and which, ostensibly, will someday benefit from the pricing revenue dependent Second Avenue subway line. An aide told us the council member's staff was "trying to get a correction," and has submitted this letter to the paper:

Dear Editor:

Your article, "Traffic Plan In Trouble", misstates my position. I have consistently stated that I would support congestion pricing if the Bloomberg Administration enhances or modifies the commission's plan in four critical areas, on which the plan remains silent or deficient: the Holland Tunnel/ Canal Street corridor; bus management, including clean engine standards for all the buses the plan will bring into lower Manhattan ; non-pricing traffic management, which carries over into non-pricing hours; and equity among city residents. I have proposed detailed recommendations, based on community and expert input. Implementing the commission's plan without those enhancements or changes will worsen congestion and pollution on many streets, including the canal street corridor. Meetings are scheduled to discuss these proposals. I remain optimistic that the City Council and the Administration will reach agreement on the best possible traffic plan for all New Yorkers.

At our request, Gerson's office also sent over the council member's eight-page position paper on congestion pricing [PDF], in which he describes the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission report as "deeply disturbing."

Significant sustained congestion avoidance and reduction requires focus on the various specific, localized congestion points and causes. It is unbelievable to me, that the TMC's staff report does not once mention the Canal Street corridor or the Holland Tunnel.

I repeatedly urged the commission to incorporate a focus on this hottest of traffic hot spots. The New York Metropolitan Traffic Consortium (NYMTC) has spent several years developing a Canal Area Traffic Study (CATS). One would think that any serious TMC plan would evaluate how to build on NYMTC's work and would propose resources to support and implement NYMTC's findings and recommendations.

Three additional flaws become apparent upon examination of the analyses undertaken by the commission to date: the overemphasis on revenue generation; the failure to consider needed mitigation of adverse impact from increase in commuter buses, proposed in several schemes; and the lack of regard for the impact of different proposals on the integration and unity of the City.

Like some pricing opponents, Gerson worries about a "gentrification of the streets" effect:

Many of us over the years have become increasingly concerned about the widening stratification of our city, with parts of Manhattan becoming elite enclaves. Commission analyses have shown the relative progressivism of most congestion pricing measures. However, those analyses do not take into account the non-financial perception and actual experience of areas cordoned off by several congestion pricing schemes as socially apart from the rest of the city. To avoid this, all plans should aim to minimize the cordoning-off effect.

As also noted yesterday, this isn't the first time Gerson has been polled as anti-pricing. Considering the number of problems he has with the plan as written, and the reductive nature of "yes/no/maybe so" surveys, it isn't hard to see why.

Photo: J Blough/Flickr

The Sun reports:

The MTA's executive director, Elliot Sander, who will testify at the hearing, has said Mr. Bloomberg's plan to charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street would generate $4.5 billion in revenue, which the MTA could borrow on in advance. Even with the use of congestion fee funds, the MTA budget has a $9 billion shortfall.

Mr. Silver said in a statement yesterday that he is concerned that the congestion plan would not be fully funded and that it is unclear whether the proceeds from the traffic tax would be devoted to capital projects alone or to routine maintenance and operations.

The congestion pricing plan would qualify for $354 million in federal aid if passed by Albany and the City Council by March 31. Mr. Silver has said he would not support it unless it includes rebates for low-income drivers.

According to the hearing announcement, the assembly members will "seek information on the specific details associated with the proposed projects contained in the plan as well as the funding of the plan. This hearing will also provide an opportunity for the Committees to examine the other components of the plan, such as how a congestion mitigation plan and its consequences are addressed."

The hearing will begin at 10:30 a.m. at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Meeting Hall, 42 W. 44th St. (bet. Fifth & Sixth Aves., 2nd Floor, in Manhattan.

The Daily Politics got hold of the letter [PDF], which appears below in full, including the names of its 20 signatories -- some of whom, like David Yassky and Melissa Mark-Viverito, are pricing supporters.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

We are writing to urge you to correct an unfairness in the "congestion pricing" policy proposed by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, prior to the upcoming votes in the City Council and the State Legislature.

We are concerned that the burden of paying for congestion pricing will fall too heavily on New York City residents - and in particular on residents of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island - while commuters from outside the City will remain unaffected.

Under the current proposal, bridge and tunnel toll payments would be credited against the $8 congestion charge. This means that commuters who currently pay tolls to use the Port Authority and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority river crossings will pay no additional congestion fee. The bulk of these drivers live outside of New York City. At the same time, drivers who enter Manhattan via the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge or the Williamsburg Bridge will pay the full $8 congestion charge. Most of these drivers do live within New York City.

This is blatantly unfair.

Indeed, the Final Report of the Congestion Pricing Commission itself appears to recognize the unfairness when it states: "The Commission recommends that the State Legislature consider the concerns raised by some Commissioners regarding the contribution of commuters from west of the Hudson River to the MTA Capital Plan."

We ask you, as the primary architect of the congestion pricing plan, to act to remedy the unfairness, either by amending the plan to require commuters from outside New York City to pay a congestion fee in addition to bridge and tunnel tolls, or by forcing the Port Authority to agree to devote a significant portion of their revenue from Hudson River crossings to funding mass transit in New York City (as suggested in the sentence quoted above from the Commission Report).

One proposal for addressing the unfairness would be to give drivers a full credit for bridge and tunnel tolls only if they reside in one of the five boroughs; under this proposal, drivers from outside the City would be given partial credit for toll payments but would still be required to pay some fee for entering the congestion zone. This would improve the existing plan in three ways. First, it would treat New York City residents more equitably in comparison to New Jersey commuters; while City residents would still bear the brunt of the new charges, the unfairness would be lessened. Second, it would raise substantially more revenue than the current proposal, with no additional cost; this revenue would enable more significant expansions in mass transit service than are envisioned in the Commission proposal. Third, it would make the policy more effective in reducing congestion by giving New Jersey commuters an incentive to choose mass transit.

We have been told by members of your Administration that a concern has been raised as to the constitutionality of a plan that provides a different toll credit to City residents than is provided to non-residents. After consulting with constitutional law scholars, we are confident that our proposal is constitutionally valid - just like, for example, the current practice of allowing Staten Island residents to pay a reduced fare for using the Verrazano Bridge.

As an alternative to adjusting the toll credit, another way to address the unfair burden on City residents would be to require the Port Authority to contribute a significant portion of its revenue from tolls on the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge to the Metropolitan Transit Authority, for use in funding system improvements within the City. We note that in expectation of the congestion pricing policy, the Port Authority cynically raised the tolls on the crossings it controls, so that those tolls will be exactly the same as the $8 congestion fee - thus ensuring that revenue generated from drivers who use those crossings will be spent by the Port Authority rather than on mass transit. Either of the two proposals discussed in this letter - capping the toll credit, or requiring a Port Authority contribution to the MTA - would ensure that more of the revenue generated from driving commuters goes to mass transit, and would help force the Port Authority to be a more responsible partner in planning and implementing the region's transportation network.

Finally, we note that some of the signatories to the letter support the idea of congestion pricing; others do not, or have concerns beyond the unfairness of the plan's burden on City residents in comparison to non-resident commuters. All of us, however, believe strongly that this unfairness must be corrected.

Sincerely,

Council Members,

Yassky
James
Mark-Viverito
Garodnick
Brewer
Koppell
Jackson
Gioia
Seabrook
Felder
Vacca
White
Mendez
Liu
Gentile
Lappin
Stewart
Vallone
Rivera
Dilan

Note that Viverito's column, reprinted here in full, was published just before the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission released its recommendation.

In the East Harlem and South Bronx communities that I represent, we are automatically skeptical when business interests and politicians from outside our communities claim to be watching out for us - because nine times out of 10, they're doing just the opposite.

So it is with congestion pricing. For months, some suburban elected officials from wealthy areas, as well as a coalition backed primarily by the American Automobile Association and Manhattan garage owners, have tried their best to cloak themselves as guardians of New York's poor and middle-class residents.

They have cynically insisted, for instance, that congestion pricing - a plan to charge drivers who enter Manhattan's central business district during working hours - would most affect residents who can least afford it. That is nonsense. The truth is that just 5 percent of commuters in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx travel to Manhattan by private car. People who drive their cars to work also earn 30 percent more a year than those of us who use mass transit. It is our poor and middle-class families who would benefit from congestion pricing - as the fees charged to drivers would be used to improve the bus and subway system.

Critics have also tried to whitewash congestion pricing's health benefits to communities such as Harlem and the Bronx, where kids are hospitalized for asthma attacks far more often than in Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Poor communities need creative measures to reduce the vehicle emissions that create the conditions for asthma and other health problems. What we don't need, want or deserve is to be used as fig leaves for those who represent suburban commuters and parking magnates. I hope the members of the state commission studying traffic congestion have seen through these ploys, and that they listen to the concerns of Bronx residents and other outer-borough New Yorkers. Tomorrow, we will learn for certain if they hear our concerns when they release a report that will determine whether or not the City Council and State Legislature will take up votes on congestion pricing.

Unlike those who falsely claim to speak for the best interests of my constituents, the commission ought to recognize it would be irresponsible not to pursue a policy that could provide immediate and measurable relief of traffic congestion while improving the air that all of my constituents breathe and the buses and subways that they ride daily.

Aide Ashley Pillsbury wanted us to know that, while Hevesi is opposed to congestion pricing, he is a supporter of transit -- though she said the Times-Ledger story quoted the assemblyman correctly.

The point of Hevesi's remarks, Pillsbury said, was that transit revenues, rather than environmental benefits, are the driving force behind congestion pricing. Pillsbury also said that Hevesi believes congestion pricing should undergo a state environmental review before implementation. She was unaware of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission recommendation that the pricing pilot program be monitored for its environmental impacts, with adjustments made as warranted, but said such impacts should be known beforehand.

When a scheduled phone interview with Hevesi didn't pan out, Pillsbury sent over an op-ed written by the assemblyman and previously published "in several Queens newspapers." Here it is in full.

Manhattan, its residents and its representatives have a serious and legitimate problem to deal with regarding traffic congestion and pollution. While all of the proposed solutions have the potential to negatively impact the areas and the people I represent, I felt it was prudent to wait before solidifying my position, because only comprehensive thinking and cooperation between communities will allow us to tackle large, complex problems like the one Manhattan now faces.

After review of the final proposal, I am now forced to definitively oppose congestion pricing. A number of prominent elected officials have already voiced opposition to this plan including my Councilwoman, Melinda Katz. Some of the issues Councilwoman Katz and others have raised range from mildly troubling to monumentally problematic. These include the fact that there is no guarantee that revenues will be spent on mass transit, the possibility of increased park and riders in outer boroughs and elitist residential parking permit plans that will make people pay to park in their own neighborhoods and keep other citizens out, the fact that New Jersey residents will get a free ride because their tolls will offset the fee, and the fact that the plan hits low and middle income residents exceptionally hard while the more affluent among us will not be impacted.

While these issues gave me pause, it was not until I came upon the fatal flaw in the congestion pricing plan that I was forced to solidify my opposition. I cannot, as a representative of Forest Hills, Middle Village, Rego Park and the surrounding areas, cast a vote in favor of a plan of this magnitude before I am able to definitively assess the environmental impact to these communities. To do so would be the height of irresponsibility because the plan will result in uncalculated levels of increased pollution in the neighborhoods I represent, which in turn, affects the lungs of growing children, complicates or aggravates medical conditions of the elderly and is a contributing factor in respiratory, heart and lung disease.

There is a very simple way for those supporting this plan to address this shortcoming: mandate that a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be conducted in compliance with New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). SEQRA was written specifically to address major undertakings, such as congestion pricing, with a fact based analysis conducted by qualified experts. Without this information and a realistic understanding of the environmental impact on our neighborhoods, I will not support any plan that has the potential to inflict unknown levels of damage to the environmental well being of my communities and the physical health of the people I represent.

This issue is paramount, and I am stunned by members of the environmental community supporting congestion pricing who are asking us to acquiesce to this plan on the basis of a wink and a nod. The refusal of proponents of this plan to conduct a full review leads me to conclude that either they don't care about the environmental impact on our communities or they won't allow a full EIS because they know that the results will not be good for their cause.

All other deflective or untenable assertions that have been used to try to argue against the need for an EIS WILL NOT SUFFICE. These have included: 1) citing studies on environmental impacts in other cities like London and Stockholm, with facts that can be spun in any direction 2) the promise of an expedited EIS that will take place after I cast my vote in the state legislature or 3) unproven guesswork by an environmental community, who interestingly have consistently demanded SEQRA compliance and EIS's on other major undertakings in New York State but not this one.

Conduct a full Environmental Impact Study, in compliance with all SEQRA requirements, and I will come back to the table ready to discuss all other aspects of congestion pricing in good faith in order to help our neighbors in Manhattan. Until that is done, I will not support congestion pricing.

The first such argument is a condensed version of the dramatic, impassioned plea-to-justice that Brodsky delivered at the final Congestion Mitigation Hearing a couple of weeks ago:

"For the first time in American history, someone is seriously proposing to charge the public for access to a public space."

It makes one wonder: When was the last time Brodsky paid a subway fare, bridge toll or train ticket out of his own pocket? Could it be that his windshield perspective on the city is so deeply ingrained that he doesn't realize that of the hundreds of thousands of people walking around Manhattan's traffic-choked public spaces every day -- 85 percent of them -- paid for "access" via mass transit?

Wylde countered:

Well, I said I live in Brooklyn and I have a choice. I can drive my car into Manhattan to work, in which case I pay nothing, or I can take the express bus, in which case I pay $9.00 a day. So right now we don't have a fair system. The people who take the bus are paying more and stuck in traffic. The people who are taking the subways, we don't have the resources we need to improve conditions. This program will raise almost a billion dollars between the federal grant that is promised if we pass this by March 31st and half a--half a billion dollars a year in revenues to support the system.

Ms. WYLDE: Why is every environmental organization in the city and state in favor of this, then?

Mr. BRODSKY: They're not.

Ms. WYLDE: They are. Name one that's not in favor of this.

Mr. BRODSKY: Well...

Ms. WYLDE: Every health organization...

Mr. BRODSKY: Gabe...

PRESSMAN: Yeah.

Mr. BRODSKY: Help me, Gabe.

Ms. WYLDE: ...every environmental organization, every business organization...

Mr. BRODSKY: I--all I want to do is just get my...

Ms. WYLDE: ...are supporting this. This isn't--it...

PRESSMAN: OK, well...

Mr. BRODSKY: But...

PRESSMAN: ...and she raises a legitimate issue, which is why are the environmentalists for it if it's so terrible?

Mr. BRODSKY: Well, I--some environmentalists are and some environmentalists are against it.

Ms. WYLDE: Who's against it?

Mr. BRODSKY: You want organizational names?

Ms. WYLDE: In the environmental community?

Mr. BRODSKY: Yes. I--some of the witnesses who testified, very clearly, are against it, the chairman of the Assembly committee on the environment, among others.

Not letting the facts stand in his way, Brodsky continues:

Mr. BRODSKY: There's a state law--I do, too. There's a state law that says you have to do an environmental impact study before you approve a project.

PRESSMAN: Right.

Mr. BRODSKY: They want to repeal that law and say we're going to approve the project, then do the study.

Ms. WYLDE: That is inaccurate. There's no one calling to repeal that law.

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, whose job it was to evaluate Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, has succeeded in only making a bad plan worse.

... it seems this new version has raised more questions than it has answered.

But rather than raising more questions, Dinowitz, for the most part, simply restates the same asked-and-answered arguments we've come to know by heart. Still, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we thought we'd answer them again, one by one, for old time's sake.

Who could support a plan that creates a regressive tax on middle-class and working people from the Bronx and the outer boroughs while giving an exemption to drivers from New Jersey who are more likely to be able to afford such a tax?

According to census data, less than five percent of New Yorkers drive into Manhattan's central business district for work. An analysis by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and the Pratt Center for Community Development shows that in all but one state Assembly district in the city, households with a vehicle are 50 percent wealthier than those without. In nearly half of the districts -- including Dinowitz's -- average income is twice as high. So actual figures suggest that the popular "regressive tax" cry is so much faux-populist bluster. Further, nearly all of the "middle-class and working people" Dinowitz and other pricing opponents claim to be speaking up for are now relying on a transit system that will benefit from congestion pricing.

As for the toll credit "exemption," New Jersey drivers would pay $8 to enter the CBD, same as everyone else, even if the money doesn't go into the same pot. Are New Jerseyans really "more likely to be able to afford" a fee than New Yorkers? If so, Dinowitz offers no data to back the claim. Even if he did, the argument itself is a red herring intended to put New Yorkers on defense against "the other" -- just as Dinowitz and his fellow pricing opponents have tried to cast the "Manhattan elite" as the beneficiaries of a plan designed mainly to improve access to Manhattan from outside the borough.

Also among my chief concerns is the fact that there have been no assurances that the money generated from the plan will actually be spent on improving mass transit.

Dinowitz must have missed out on the opportunity to get with McCaffrey and City Council Member David Weprin when they called a January press conference to raise this same issue. Thing is, state and city electeds were already working on a "lock box" to secure pricing revenues for transit, and the TCMC plan includes such a "dedicated transit account." Has Assemblyman Dinowitz actually read the commission recommendation?

There is no guarantee that the revenues generated by the plan will be as much as the city is claiming, and there is also no guarantee that the expenses involved in setting up and running this project won't be even more costly than they expect.

This is technically true, but the same can be said of any government plan -- or any business model, for that matter. What is known is the cost of doing nothing would be catastrophic for the MTA. Just ask Elliot Sander.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that in the initial MTA proposal, there was not a single improvement recommended for mass transit in the western half of the Bronx.

Though the city says there will be increased service on the 1 train and funding for Bus Rapid Transit service on Fordham Road, and there are references in PlaNYC to making better use of Metro-North and exploring new ferry service, Dinowitz has a point here. But instead of expending so much effort assailing a plan that would fund improvements to transit infrastructure that almost fifty percent of his constituents depend on, perhaps he could use his position as a state lawmaker to expedite and augment those upgrades. Of course, if the relative lack of transit options in the western Bronx mattered all that much to him, he probably would have been doing that already.

To make matters worse, it is shocking that the city has not done an environmental study for a project of this magnitude. There is no way of knowing, for example, if this plan will actually result in cleaner air for Manhattan or, even worse, perhaps more pollution for the residents of the Bronx.

Again, the commission report includes a recommendation for environmental monitoring to begin as soon as the plan is implemented, with adjustments to be made as needed. This is an especially spurious argument, since Dinowitz and other pricing foes would certainly shred any preemptive environmental study that didn't back up their position, just as they have criticized the TCMC process, which itself was initiated after complaints that the mayor's original plan was being forced through Albany. And what do you know, a revised plan approved by 13 members of a 17-member bi-partisan commission after months of public hearings isn't good enough either.

There is the very real possibility that commuters will begin using the outer boroughs as a parking lot to avoid paying the congestion pricing fee.

Surely Dinowitz is aware that the city plans to institute residential parking permits to discourage park-and-ride activity. He must know that DOT has, for the last two weeks, held neighborhood parking workshops in areas that would border the pricing zone to gather public input on same, and that the pricing plan recommended by the commission includes an RPP provision. And he must know, if he's done his homework, that the "edge effect" is a generally discredited phenomena that has not proven a problem in cities where congestion pricing is in place. In fact, research by the TCMC shows that congestion in border neighborhoods would actually decrease with pricing in effect. But reality-based evidence and research would not serve Dinowitz's purpose nearly as well as another inflammatory broadside.

Among some of the commission's other faults in their revised plan is the fact that the West Side Highway and FDR Drive will now be included in the congestion pricing zone so that someone driving from Bronx to Brooklyn would have to pay the fee, and that surcharges will be added to passengers in taxi cabs.

The commission's recommendation to expand the cordon to include the West Side Highway and FDR Drive is indeed new, and since Dinowitz is opposed to the concept of congestion pricing it makes sense that he would be against broadening the plan's scope -- though he gives no credit to the commission for recommending the zone's northern border be moved from 86th to 60th Street. As for taxi surcharges, in September Dinowitz complained that taxis and car services would be exempt, offering further confirmation that no matter how many times congestion pricing is reviewed, discussed and altered, the assemblyman and his cohorts will never be satisfied, and the possibility of yet another volley of hackneyed half-truths and outright obfuscations will always be as close as the next news cycle.

While congestion pricing revenue will go to the MTA "lock box," this much smaller fund would be used by DOT for bike, pedestrian, traffic calming, parking and BRT improvements that would be approved each year by City Council. This DOT fund is potentially a big deal. It's a major change, and would be the first time the city created a dedicated funding stream for bicycle, pedestrian, and parking improvements, and other transportation projects. Call it the "Livable Streets Lock Box:"

Securing of parking revenues: All funds from increased on-street parking rates and the elimination of the resident parking tax exemption within the zone should be dedicated by the City of New York to additional transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and parking management improvements, including, but not limited to, expanded ferry service, bus signalization, BRT investments, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian enhancements. NYCDOT should submit an annual plan to the City Council for approval on the use of these funds and shall report on the actual expenditures of such a plan.

New York City currently funds almost all of its bicycle, pedestrian and non-automobile transportation work with federal funds. Until now, it has been a fundamental principal of the mayor's powerful Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the city will not dedicate funding raised from transportation sources to transportation projects. Previously, the city has rejected the idea proposed by Transportation Alternatives and neighborhood groups like CHEKPEDS to "return" parking meter revenue to Parking Improvement or Business Improvement Districts for local streetscape improvements. In Los Angeles and San Diego, such "revenue return" has been a huge incentive for adopting smart curbside parking policies using vacancy targets and variable pricing.

The new DOT fund should appeal to council members because it is a new funding stream for highly visible pedestrian and bicycle improvements to their districts. That's a lot of ribbon cuttings for projects people love, like Safe Streets for Seniors and Safe Routes for Schools.

Much can happen as the council drafts authorizing legislation for the congestion pricing plan. Skeptics will point out that this funding may simply substitute --- not add to --- existing city transportation funding. But since the city spends very little on cyclists and pedestrians, any new funding stream, especially one tied closely to council districts and neighborhood projects, has to be seen as a major gain for the livable streets movement.

Hours after the Congestion Mitigation Commission revealed that residential parking programs would be attached to its congestion pricing plan, about 70 Brooklynites gathered at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope last night to talk about RPP. The event was the third DOT/EDC neighborhood parking workshop held this week, following others in Long Island City and Forest Hills. This round of workshops focused tightly on RPP compared to the first round, in November, which examined parking in general.

DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller, on hand for the evening, told me that RPP was still in the early planning stages, and that it comprised one part of DOT's broader parking management program. While development of RPP will proceed regardless of congestion pricing's ultimate fate, Schaller noted that "the commission's report gave more definition to what the timeline would be." In addition to permit fees and eligibility requirements, the big issues that need to be hammered out, he said, include defining the boundaries of permit zones, drawing up a process for establishing new zones, and determining how to administer the details of issuing permits and enforcing the rules.

Workshop participants sat at tables in groups of eight while DOT staffers led the exercises. First the DOT reps presented data gathered from observations of the study area, which included the northern blocks of Park Slope and most of Prospect Heights. A few numbers that jumped out:

• The vacancy rate of residential (non-metered) parking spots never exceeded five percent
• Among parked vehicles observed at 2:00 p.m., 41 percent were registered outside Brooklyn and 29 percent were registered outside New York City
• Among vehicles that parked overnight, 35 percent were registered outside Brooklyn and 27 percent were registered outside New York City (the numbers may be a little exaggerated, since they don't measure newcomers accurately)

In the main exercise, participants were presented with four RPP program options. Each option applied different rules to four categories of parkers:

1. Local residents
2. Non-residents who work in the neighborhood -- "local employees"
3. All-day parkers -- park-and-ride commuters, relatives in town for the holidays
   
4. Short-term visitors -- shoppers, people going to the dentist
   

The options were intentionally left somewhat open by DOT, since the details are still flexible. Here's the rundown:

Option A:

• Permit required to park in non-metered spots during the hours RPP restrictions are in effect (could be anywhere from 8-24 hours)
• Residents and local employees issued annual permits that cost $75-$125
• All-day parkers and short-term visitors not eligible for a permit

Option B:

• Similar to Option A but with one big difference: RPP would only be in effect for 1-2 hours each day, staggered on each side of the street. This still locks out park-and-riders but would, on the face of it, give short-term parkers a reason to cruise for free spots.

Option C:

• Similar to Option A but with one really huge difference: Only residents could obtain an annual permit. Everyone else would have to buy a daily permit for $8, which could also be purchased in monthly or annual equivalents.

Option D:

• Same as Option C, but like Option B, RPP would be in effect 1-2 hours each day, staggered on each side of the street.

People were asked to evaluate the options in terms of quality of life, traffic mitigation, fostering transit use, and meeting the parking needs of the four groups. Then the questions turned toward matters of implementation and administration. In the final exercise, people outlined the ideal permit zone for their neighborhood on a map of the study area.

Whether due to the subject matter, the roundtable format, or the crowd itself, the discussion didn't provoke the same kind of passion as congestion pricing. For the most part, people seemed in favor of RPP, although one table was unanimously opposed to it. Curiously, everyone at that table owned cars but also favored congestion pricing. It was the notion of drawing boundaries around neighborhoods that bothered them about RPP.

As Schaller had hinted, boundaries may be a more critical issue to resolve than fees or eligibility. At the table where I completed the exercise, some people drew a boundary around the entire map, while others outlined no more than six blocks. Some DOT staffers who had worked the Forest Hills workshop the night before said that residents there wanted huge zones because they liked to drive to see their friends.

After the exercises ended, I spoke for a minute with Michael Nared, a resident of Starrett City who commutes to a catering hall in Harlem. He drives to Park Slope and hops on the train there. If anyone at the workshop stood to lose from RPP, it was him. But he wasn't necessarily opposed to it, or to congestion pricing for that matter. If pricing and RPP both take effect, he said he'd sell his car and take the bus to the train -- a 70-minute commute from start to finish. He wasn't angry, just anxious that the MTA won't be able to get him to work any faster than it does now. He also thought that mass transit -- or at least buses -- should be free if there's going to be a congestion charge. I asked him if he'd heard of the Kheel Plan, and he said no.

13 yes votes.
2 no votes: Richard Brodsky and Denny Farrell
1 abstention: Richard Bivone
1 absent: Vivan Cook

Next stop on the timeline, March 28:

The City Council must vote to approve the "Implementation Plan," send a home rule message to the state legislature. A home rule message is a request from a city or town council to the state legislature asking them to vote on legislation affecting only that town or city.

Now that the policy making is done, let the politics begin.