"(This) is an absolutely great idea," said Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing), chairman of the council's Transportation Committee. "We need to rediscover and utilize this tremendous natural transportation resource to overcome many of the challenges faced by a growing city."

Operating costs for the five borough ferry service could reach up to $100 million annually, according to Liu, and will require the city to combine them with debt service on capital expenditures, like building docks. But when compared with other mass transit expansions, he added, "this is a very manageable investment for the long term."

Sounds expensive.

Now, thanks to documents published by the Traffic Mitigation Commission, we have a better idea of how big this Livable Streets Lock Box fund will be: Roughly $39 million a year. As spelled out in the "Increase Cost of Parking" document in Appendix J of the Commission's final report:

Annual Funding for NYC DOT Fund:
$22 million Eliminate Manhattan resident parking garage tax exemption:
$17 million Increase rates for on-street parking (widely considered a low estimate).
Total: $39 million

Though perhaps modest by London standards where the Mayor just announced that the City would be spending $100 million a year on bicycle projects, the Fund could get bigger in the future if it also receives revenue from curbside parking reforms being contemplated by DOT. However, big questions about how the money will be spent remain. The Traffic Commission called for the fund to be spent on:

"transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and parking management improvements, including, but not limited to, expanded ferry service, bus signalization, BRT investments, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian enhancements."

Yet, in her State of the City address earlier this week, Council Speaker Christine Quinn called for the creation of a "comprehensive five-borough, year-round New York City Ferry System." Ferries require heavy subsidies. The Staten Island Ferry costs the city about $74 million a year to operate and New York Water Taxi is currently going bust. Quinn's proposed ferry network will be expensive. And yet the city is entering a period of budget cuts.

The Speaker is in a powerful position right now. The Mayor is dependent on her to deliver congestion pricing in City Council. So, how will Quinn's new ferries be paid for? Is she aiming to redirect the Livable Streets Lock Box funds to ferries?

With some neighborhoods more than three quarters of a mile from a subway station we need to examine other modes of transportation. It's only natural to look at our natural highways ... our water ways ... to move New Yorkers efficiently and sustainably.

That's why we are proposing and the Mayor has agreed to begin developing a comprehensive five-borough, year-round New York City Ferry System.

Once again, this is an idea that came straight from listening to New Yorkers.

At a hearing that my colleagues Joe Addabbo, John Liu and I held in Broad Channel, we heard complaint after complaint about commute times from local residents.

Soon after, we began exploring the concept of a pilot ferry service for the Rockaways ... got a commitment from the Mayor to fund it ... and that service should be up and running by this summer.

But why limit ourselves to Rockaway?

Imagine getting on a ferry in Hunts Point for a day trip to Coney Island.

Or commuting from Astoria to downtown without having to brave the traffic at the Triboro Bridge.

Or traveling from Brooklyn to Queens without waiting for the G train.

And think of how it will enhance our infrastructure, open up our waterfronts and create jobs.

Later this month, we'll unveil a detailed plan for developing what will be one of the most significant transit initiatives in recent New York City history.

Before we do, I'd like to thank the Mayor, my colleagues, and Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, for helping us make this vision a reality - and for working with us to keep our city moving forward.

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.

Meghan Goth reports:

With city buses slogging their way past double-parked cars on Archer Avenue just outside, Queens community members and elected officials testified on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal for a three-year congestion pricing pilot program at York College Performing Arts Center last night.

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation hearing, one of seven being held around the city, gave community leaders the chance to voice their opinion before the 17-member commission and a packed house.

As expected, a majority spoke against the mayor's plan. Many, like the Queens Civic Congress, offered suggestions for how to solve New York City's traffic problems without making it more expensive to drive private automobiles into Manhattan's transit-rich Central Business District.

Though they were clearly in the minority, a surprising number of Queens residents spoke up in favor of Bloomberg's plan. Just about everyone who stood up to testify agreed that traffic congestion is a serious and growing problem and the city needs to come up with solutions now.

"I might have to pay to go to Manhattan, but I support congestion pricing unequivocally," said Marc Scott, a Jackson Heights, Queens resident. "The Mayor's plan is a step in the right direction."

The plan, Scott said, would keep Queens streets safer and would help his son, who is asthmatic.

"If we reduced idling on my street, that would help him breathe better," Scott said. "I've lived in New York City for more than 20 years, and the man has a vision to make New York City better."

The audience clapped and cheered in response.

Despite the fact that only 4.5 percent of Queens workers drive into Manhattan to work in the proposed pricing zone (download TSTC.org's Queens fact-sheet), many who spoke felt strongly that the Mayor's proposals would be unfair to lower- and middle-income families.

"Queens residents drive to Manhattan more than any other borough because they have little mass transit options," said Helen Marshall, Queens borough president. "We must not be punished by those who have not offered mass transit options in Queens."

In fact, the Mayor's congestion pricing proposal comes with a plan to create 36 new bus routes and bus rapid transit lines and Queens in which most of them will run.

Marshall proposed ideas echoed in others' testimony, such as, increasing Long Island railroad stops to include some areas in Queens, creating a ferry service to the Rockaways and retiring non-clean air buses. Another strongly voiced sentiment was concern for elderly people who must travel into Manhattan, and thus pay a fee, for medical services that are only available there.

Veronica Vanterpool, who spoke on behalf of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, was the first in long line of congestion supporters at the meeting. She pointed out that 95 percent of Queens residents would not be affected by congestion pricing because either they don't commute outside of the borough or because they use mass transit.

Another supporter of the pricing plan was Joseph Hartigan, a Rockaway resident who posed a question to the audience.

"Why is it that Staten Island gets to commute for free?" he said, referring to the Staten Island ferry, which does not charge a fee. "No one in this room except from Staten Island gets to commute for free."

The night went on in similar debate with a majority of dissenters and a surprising number of supporters to the mayor's plan.

At the close of the meeting, buses were still bunching up along Archer Avenue, slogging their way past double-parked vehicles. Politicians and community members filtered out of the Performing Arts center, the Commission adjourned only until tonight's forum in the Bronx.

Reporting and photo by Meghan Goth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zupan sums up the "Alternatives" report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Monday evening, just hours before the federal government's announcement that it would give New York City $354.5 million to kick-start Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9th District) spoke with New Yorkers on environmental and energy issues at a forum hosted by Solar 1.

One of the earliest vocal critics of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, Weiner made clear to the environmentally-conscious audience that his position has not changed on the subject. Rather than charging motorists any fee, Weiner said that he would rather tackle New York City's traffic congestion problem by improving ferry service on the East River, increasing cycling mode share to 10 percent of all commuter trips, reducing truck traffic during peak hours and starting work on the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel. A Democratic contender for Mayor in 2009, Weiner did not delve into the specifics of how he would accomplish or pay for the implementation of his transportation policy goals.

Anthony Weiner's 2005 Mayoral campaign ads pictured him playing stickball on the Brooklyn street where he grew up. You don't see kids playing street ball in Weiner's old neighborhood anymore. Too much traffic.

Weiner, who told the Brooklyn Eagle yesterday, "Congestion pricing is simply a bad idea that will create a giant expensive bureaucracy, hand too much authority to state agencies, and give many suburbanites a free ride at the expense of New York City residents," laid out a four point critique of congestion pricing. He said:

1. Congestion Pricing is a regressive tax: Weiner said he believes congestion pricing will hurt New York City's poor and small business owners, while wealthy suburbanites will pay whatever it costs to keep driving. The commuter tax, Weiner said, was a much more effective way to raise money for the city.
   
   
2. Congestion Pricing will not raise enough money for mass transit: Weiner said that the technology necessary to run a congestion pricing system is too expensive to set up and run compared to the amount of revenue that it will bring in. Weiner suggested that 40 percent of the revenue generated by the system would go towards paying to run it. He also expects that whatever funds are raised for mass transit will ultimately be deducted from New York State and Federal mass transit aid to New York City.
   
   
3. Congestion Pricing is a divisive issue: Weiner believes that congestion pricing draws unnecessary borders within and across different communities, especially between the outer boroughs and Manhattan.
   
   
4. There are other more effective means to reduce congestion: In addition to his call for starting construction on the Cross-Harbor freight rail tunnel, increasing bicycle mode share and beefing up ferry service, Weiner said that traffic flow could be improved simply by better enforcement of existing traffic laws.
   

Weiner also spoke more broadly about environmental policy and politics on both the local and national levels.

He places much of the blame for the lack of action on climate change squarely at the feet of the Bush administration and powerful members of Congressional energy and environment committees from districts where coal, oil and automotive production are influential. Weiner said that he is proud of what Congressional Democrats were able to accomplish in the recent energy conservation tax bill and he looks forward to passing a bill establishing a cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. He views environmental issues as an opportunity to unite Republicans and Democrats.

When pushed by moderator Chris Neidl and members of the audience for specifics, Weiner offered four ideas for making New York City more environmentally friendly:

The feeling among environmental leaders I spoke with after the Q&A was that Weiner falls into that frustrating camp of New York City Democratic politicians who say all the right things and seem to agree with progressive goals on the surface, yet when it comes to putting a real plan into action, Weiner seems to be more worried about upsetting vocal constituents than achieving tangible gains.

Photo: The Oscar Mayer Weiner Mobile in Times Square by jacksonsquare on Flickr

1. The final Implementation Plan cooked up by the 17-member committee isn't just going to be a "traffic migitation" plan. To qualify for this funding, New York City is going to have to "use pricing as the principal mechanism" to achieve traffic reductions, according to the Feds.
   
   
2. Keep your eye on the 6.3%. The federal grant demands that whatever plan New York City settles upon, it must reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the congestion zone by 6.3%. Even in relatively simple cases (like, say, removing traffic from Central and Prospect Park) traffic modeling can be a subjective and complex business. Whomever is responsible for inputting data and analyzing the output of New York City's traffic model, is going to be an important person these next few months. I don't know about you, but I'm sure glad that Bruce Schaller is working for the Dept. of Transportation now.
   
   
3. Today is a great day for New York City's bus system. Forget the congestion pricing fight for a moment. The vast majority of this federal money -- 92% of it! -- is going straight into immediate upgrades for New York City's bus system. That is huge. With $213.6 million, the MTA will roll out 367 new buses, upgrade pedestrian walkways around some stations and build a dedicated bus lane across the East River. The grant will also provide $112.7 million to fund New York City's long-promised Bus Rapid Transit project. Ferries get $15.8 million too.

• $10.4 million to implement congestion pricing - These funds are dedicated to beginning congestion pricing south of 86th street, with a requirement to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the congestion pricing zone by 6.3%, which is achieved in the Mayor's plan. The City is also committed to provide $112.7 million for technology acquisition, matching the USDOT's spending on bus rapid transit (described below).
• $213.6 million for bus facilities and other improvements - The grant will pay for the construction of the Jamaica and Charleston Annex bus depots. The MTA will purchase up to 367 new buses with funds already budgeted for the construction of the depots - as proposed in the UPA application to meet procurement regulations. In addition, the grant also pays for: constructing a bus lay-up facility, upgrading park-n-ride locations, improving pedestrian walkways to and from stations; and providing new technology at 223 intersections to better manage traffic flow. NYCDOT will construct an East River bus lane to decrease travel times.
• $112.7 million to begin Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - A high speed BRT system will be developed in New York City. PlaNYC calls for BRT to begin in all five boroughs along major transit corridors which lack subway service.
• $15.8 million for regional ferry service - Ferry service improvements will connect developing neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens with Midtown and Lower Manhattan.
• $2 million for research - To support the West of Hudson Regional Transportation Alternatives Analysis/DEIS.

The Conditions:
The funding from the USDOT is conditioned on actions by the New York State Legislature and the New York City Council. Congestion pricing must be approved within 90 days of the opening of the next session of the New York State Legislature, allowing congestion pricing to begin no later than March 31, 2009. If the State Legislature implements a plan which is different than the Mayor's, in order to access the funds, the plan must:

• Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the congested zone by at least 6.3%;
• Use pricing as the principal mechanism to achieve this reduction;
• Provide for at least 18 months of congestion pricing operation;
• Provide enough bus service as called for by USDOT to meet the mobility needs of New York City;
• Meets the authorization deadline of no later than 90 days after the opening of the next session of the New York State Legislature;
• Meets the implementation deadline of March 31, 2009;
• Spends as much on pricing implementation technology as is provided by USDOT for BRT implementation.
• Be approved by the USDOT.

The Penalty:
The conditions in the grant come with limitations and severe penalties:

• Neither the NYCDOT, MTA nor NYSDOT can access the transit funds until a congestion pricing plan meeting the USDOT's standards is authorized;
• Failure to meet the VMT-reduction goals, implementation deadlines and all other conditions stipulated in the USDOT grant will lead to a forfeiture of the grant.

Considering the consistency of the articles, it seems less likely that the newspapers -- which by and large support pricing -- spun Roberts' remarks and more likely that the transit chief, let's say, gave the wrong impression. After all, congestion pricing would be a boon to the MTA, providing funds to upgrade subway lines, extend bus service on overtaxed or underserved routes, and improve bus rapid transit and ferry service -- and much of this in advance of pricing, thanks to an expected $500 million federal allocation. Also, even if 10 percent of Manhattan-bound drivers make the mode shift (an estimate considered to be on the high end), it would equate to a mere 2 percent jump in transit ridership, spread across subway and bus lines throughout the boroughs.

When his warnings were interpreted as a knock at pricing, Roberts summoned reporters back to his office.

Metro reports:

Amid all the bad news, the president of NYC Transit feared an underlying message had been lost about the benefits of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed congestion pricing plan.

 
During rush hours, the busiest train lines -- including the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and E -- are running at or over capacity. Yet Roberts insisted the system could still “fully support” the increased ridership projected from congestion pricing. “In fact the current strain on parts of the system is a big argument in favor of congestion pricing, not against it,” he said.

Roberts believes the business-day toll could pay for subway improvements and for such big-ticket projects as the first leg of the Second Avenue Subway, which is already $1 billion short.

On Monday, Roberts proposed quick “fixes,” including adding more cars to trains and extending station platforms. But these remedies would take “four or five” years. More importantly, they all require money the MTA doesn’t have.

“Congestion pricing is critical to putting these fixes into place,” Roberts said yesterday.

Photo: Scott Beale/Laughing Squid

Janette Sadik-Khan: Four days.

Streetsblog: Left in the legislative session?

JSK: Yeah, well, maybe four days left, maybe more days. August in Albany. What can be better?

SB: (Laughing) So, let's start with something other than congestion pricing. How was your trip to Copenhagen to meet with Jan Gehl? Had you ever been before?

JSK: Never been.

SB: What did you think?

JSK: I thought it was spectacular. The experience of riding a bicycle in a city in which the car is not the priority was really inspiring. One piece that was a bit of a surprise was how well behaved people were in Copenhagen. I didn't see a single person break a single traffic law while I was there which is certainly a little different than the experience that we have here.

SB: I noticed the same thing when I was there last fall but every Copenhagener I asked insisted they were just as rude and unruly as New Yorkers.

JSK: Gehl went through the historic trajectory of how they've reclaimed public space bit by bit, one street at a time. Today, they've reached a tipping point where 36 percent of the people commuting to work are on bike and they're looking to get that mode share up to 40 percent.

The other thing that amazed me is that there are all of these bikes parked all over the place and it appears that none of them are locked. They all have these small black handcuffs on the rear wheel. You turn the key and this steel rod comes through and locks it up. How long do you think that would last on the streets of New York City? Ten minutes?

So, there are definite cultural elements that make Copenhagen Copenhagen and need to be adapted to work in New York. But the design of the streets and their approach to the streets are really interesting and I'm hoping to bring Gehl over at the end of next month to help us work on a pedestrian and public space strategy much like what he did for London.

SB: Would you have him work in a specific location or citywide?

JSK: We need to be able to show what can be done in all five boroughs with a variety of different techniques. But not everything needs to be a massive capital project. I'm looking to see what we can do on a shorter term basis to have some immediate impact in reclaiming streets and coming up with different designs for roadways and sidewalks.

SB: Are you looking at reclaiming on-street parking space for other uses?

JSK: That is something we're looking at. In fact, we're talking about removing a lane of parking on Broadway next to City Hall. Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia has been really great about looking for ways to reclaim street space. He's been helping me identify where these different places can be. The other question is once we reclaim it what do we do with it? You have to do it in a way that leaves a meaningful public space.

SB: So, let's talk about congestion pricing. There are a lot of negative signals coming out of Albany and Sheldon Silver. What's the status?

JSK: We're very hopeful. It's a heavy lift, certainly. The Mayor's working very hard and all of us are working very hard to see the legislation and authorization come through by Thursday, which is when the session ends. The Senate has been terrific. Bruno's been really good. The Assembly is open and we continue to do briefings. The governor has been very supportive, so that's a big help. We'll see what happens when the chips fall on Thursday.

SB: If congestion pricing doesn't pass do you have a Plan B? Are there traffic reduction measures that the city can implement if this plan falls through?

JSK: Everyone is shooting for Thursday but the promise of a special legislative session later this summer is still out there. So, Plan B is the special session. We are not giving up hope at all. We are fully committed. We need to get this legislation passed. It needs to pass now. It would be ridiculous to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. That's our plan and when the plan passes we're looking to institute a series of immediate short term improvements before the switch is flipped on congestion pricing, including increased express bus service, ferry service and a variety of other initiatives. So, our emphasis is on making sure this congestion pricing program passes. On the transportation side, we don't think there's anything more important for the future of New York than getting this plan through.

SB: Is it a given at this point that no new "SMART" authority will be created and the MTA will administer the congestion pricing program?

JSK: That is still in negotiation. On the governance side I think that they are looking at a model that includes both the city and the state much along the lines of the Capital Program Review Board which handles the MTA's money. There are four votes on the CPRB: the City, the State, the Assembly and the Senate. Four people in a room. It takes a unanimous vote of the CPRB to pass the MTA's capital program. So, I think people are moving towards that kind of a governance model. But the negotiations continue.

SB: The City's proposed Bus Rapid Transit system will be dependent on camera-based enforcement of the bus lanes. Is the legislature going to give us the cameras? Is that sort of issue even on the radar in Albany right now?

JSK: It's definitely on the radar. It's part of our plan. We're hoping it is also addressed in the next four days. Keep those phone calls going to your legislators.

SB: The Hudson Yards rezoning on the west side of Manhattan requires developers to include over 20,000 new parking spaces. We recently did a story about this on the blog that generated a lot of response. People don't understand how these parking requirements fit with the Mayor's long-term sustainability and traffic reduction goals of PlaNYC.

JSK: In Copenhagen I was joined by City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden. We spent a lot of time talking about the success of cities like Portland and Chicago that have revised their zoning codes with lower parking ratios and how that has led, in a lot of instances, to a renaissance for pedestrian space and transit without any apparent downside.

SB: Towards the end of his private consulting career, your new Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller put forward a study suggesting that pedestrianizing Prince Street in SoHo, say, on weekends, might be doable and even desirable. Can we expect to see you move on this type of project?

JSK: We're looking at all sorts of treatments to improve the streets of New York. Bruce being here is going to help us. A lot of people have interesting ideas. It will be exciting to have Jan Gehl here because he will help us identify some of the places where we can do urban acupuncture and specific interventions, much as he's done in other cities.

As important as it is to do these interventions, it is also important to ensure that we have policies and programs in place that will set the direction for the agency for years to come.