Streetsblog New York City

On Friday we noted that Assembly Member Richard Brodsky's latest anti-transit argument -- that "the actual cost of free and discounted student fares is close to zero" -- doesn't hold water. A letter from Brodsky addressed to MTA CEO Jay Walder calls for reinstating student MetroCards, laying blame for the program's potential elimination at the MTA's feet while neglecting to mention Albany's leading role in reducing funds for student transport. 

Brodsky's office sent us a copy of the letter [PDF], which is copied in full below. Among its 24 signatories, the overwhelming majority represent New York City:

Dear Hon. Walder,

We write to you as long-standing advocates for mass transit funding, as those who have regularly supported state funding for the MTA's capital and operating needs, and as those who represent students and parents across the MTA region.  We understand the continuing difficulties caused by the national recession, and the difficult decisions you are making as a consequence.  We believe that we share a desire to reform, expand, and improve the MTA, even as new leadership takes over, and as PARA 2009 makes real changes in legal, operational and fiduciary practices at the MTA. 

That being said, we write to make sure you understand the depth of our concern about MTA plans to end free and discounted student travel.  We cannot criticize any exercise that reviews all MTA expenditures and services in the face of the economic downturn.  But we reject any decision by the MTA to end free and discounted student travel as an element of a final package of changes. 

We reject that decision because it is not an accurate or intelligent analysis of the MTA's fisc [sic]. While the MTA asserts it needs $214 million in additional state and city aid to preserve the program, the actual cost of free and discounted student fares is close to zero.  We reject the MTA's assertion that the program must be valued at the ostensible lost revenue, and point out that state and city funding for the program actually exceeds the cost of providing the service. 

We reject that decision because it is a dangerous, unfair, and self-defeating political tactic. We understand the use of political tactics in budget controversies.  But there are limits, and the decision to put students and families out there as a pawn in the struggle to increase City and State funding crosses a line.

Read more...

Bronx Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz on congestion pricing, February 2008:

Who could support a plan that creates a regressive tax on middle-class and working people from the Bronx and the outer boroughs?

Jeffrey Dinowitz on the possibility of eliminating the Bx34, February 2009:

"The fact that they would come up with such a boneheaded idea with this bus reflects really poorly on their ability to run this agency."

Here's hoping that residents of the Bronx, most of whom rely on transit, decide for themselves who the real boneheads are.

State legislators who opposed congestion pricing are shocked -- shocked! -- that the New York League of Conservation Voters may hold them accountable for their positions on one of the most important environmental initiatives in recent history.

The Times reports that about a dozen lawmakers, including Bronx Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, are refusing to complete the NYLCV's candidate questionnaire, and have notified the league preemptively to say they don't want its endorsement.

What has irked some lawmakers is what they saw as a threat in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In the letter, the league said it would use its new political action committee, Climate Action, to support candidates who advanced the group's agenda. Some legislators said they viewed that as a veiled warning that the league would use the money it raised through its committee to defeat candidates who opposed Mayor Bloomberg, above, and his congestion pricing plan.

The league or its political action committee "has the right to contribute to any candidate it wants," wrote Jeffrey Dinowitz, a Democratic assemblyman from the Bronx, "but I am deeply troubled by the very clear implication that a candidate will be rewarded or punished based upon a legislator casting a specific vote the way you would want it cast."

Yes, assemblyman, an interest group basing its support on a candidate's record is indeed troubling. Oh, wait ... 

Read more...

The recommendation of a modified congestion pricing plan put forth last week by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission has elicited another editorial from Bronx Assembly Member Jeffrey Dinowitz. Tellingly, the piece, from this week's Riverdale Press, starts off with talking points that fellow Assembly Member Richard Brodsky and "Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free" spokesman Walter McCaffrey have repeated again and again since the TCMC released its recommendation report:

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.

Read more...

#Persons	%Persons	Position
39	26%	Support congestion pricing as proposed by Mayor Bloomberg in April 2007 PlaNYC proposal
46	31%	Support the concept of pricing, have concerns and recommend changes/additions to Mayor Bloomberg's proposal
13	9%	Express serious concerns with the current proposal and offer suggestions for improvement
39	26%	Oppose congestion pricing, suggest other strategies for alleviating traffic
12	8%	Do not address congestion pricing

Source: Environmental Defense

Just before Thanksgiving, Environmental Defense tallied up all of the public testimony delivered to the Traffic Mitigation Commission and found that 57 percent of the witnesses who testified "support the concept of congestion pricing." Based on the analysis, ED's Neil Giacobbi concluded:

The public hearings show that New Yorkers do in fact support the concept of congestion pricing, although they may want to see the original proposal tweaked and they want to see the revenues spent on transit improvements. Polls showing majority opposition to the original congestion pricing plan don't take these facts into account.

John DeSio sees it otherwise. DeSio (who readers may recall as the messenger for Jeffrey Dinowitz's angry response to a Streetsblog item in September), writes in the Village Voice:

The same survey also paints a grim picture of the state of civic engagement in this City, illustrating what could be described as a disturbing lack of interest on the part of the general public when it comes to voicing their opinions on a plan that would radically change the urban landscape. Just 149 individuals testified at the seven total hearings. When you subtract elected officials, civic organizations and other interested parties, you are left with just 28 percent, 42 total regular people, who felt the need to testify.

While Giacobbi agrees that the Commission's accelerated timeline has not been ideal for gathering public input, he believes that the hearings were productive, noting, "compromise, not blind support or opposition, ruled the day during the seven commission hearings." ED's analysis found that 26 percent of people testified both for and against congestion pricing, but even more speakers, 40 percent, offered suggestions to improve the policy.

Read more...

Council member Lew Fidler delivers his Tax & Tunnel plan to the Commission.

Spencer Wilking reports:

The city's traveling road show of community advocates, local politicians and concerned residents, otherwise known as New York City's Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, stopped in Brooklyn Thursday night as part of its whirlwind seven county tour.

At the hearing Brooklyn politicians delivered a resounding rejection of Mayor Bloomberg's plan for congestion pricing. From the Assembly (Joan Millman and Hakeem Jefferies) to the State Senate (Velmanette Montgomery and Carl Kruger) to the City Council (Vincent Gentile and Lew Fidler), to a candidate for Borough President (Bill de Blasio) they strode to the podium and railed against the plan calling it "Manhattan-centric" and bad for Brooklyn. Except for Councilmember David Yassky (who with great dexterity managed to support congestion pricing AND agree with his fellow Brooklyn politicos), endorsements for congestion pricing were left to residents and advocates. Council member Leticia James came close to supporting it but just couldn't do it, "at this time."

Brooklyn politicians voiced concern that their borough would become a "park and ride" community for those headed across the East River, clogging already crowded streets. They demanded the inclusion of residential parking permits to spurn this practice. Likewise, the usual argument that congestion pricing is an unfair tax on poor and working class families was cited more than once.

"I don't want to be known as an Assembly person from the largest parking lot in New York City," said Assembly member Joan Millman. "This will punish hardworking New Yorkers who live in the outer boroughs."

Millman, whose district is, literally, the tip of Long Island's traffic funnel into Lower Manhattan, crushed on a daily basis by regional through-traffic, went on to say that buildings, not vehicles were the true culprits of air pollution.

Instead of the current congestion pricing plan, politicians demanded better bus routes, more water taxis, advancements in the hybrid car, HOV lanes and a harbor freight tunnel for trucks. The need for improved subway service was a common lament, summed up by Council member Tish James, "For the record: The G train sucks."

Specific funding for these ventures was left mostly ambiguous, or as Council member Vincent Gentile put it: "The State legislature can find some options."

Read more...

One of the most oft-repeated slams against congestion pricing we heard at this week's Congestion Mitigation Committee hearings is that congestion pricing would be a "regressive tax," an unfair burden to poorer New Yorkers.

Is congestion pricing regressive? The data suggests otherwise.

As the chart above shows, even in Brooklyn Council member Lew Fidler's heavily auto-dependent district, households with a car earn more than twice the income than households without. Meanwhile, only 5.3% of workers living in Fidler's distrit drive to work in Manhattan south of 86th Street (unfortunately, Fidler is probably one of them). Fact sheets for Richard Brodsky, Vivian Cook, Denny Farrell, Jeffrey Dinowitz and other congestion pricing opponents' districts are equally revealing and very much worth a download. Cook, for example, represents a Queens district where only 3.5% of workers drive into the proposed charging zone for work.

In testimony before the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign argued the point. From this week's Mobilizing the Region:

Some anti-pricing politicians seem to have dressed up for Halloween as populists defending “working stiffs” from a “regressive tax” on driving. But an analysis of Census data by TSTC and the Pratt Center for Community Development shows that, in all but one State Assembly district in NYC, vehicle-owning households are 50% wealthier than households without a vehicle; in nearly half of districts, average income is twice as high.

Furthermore, only a small minority of commuters drive alone to the proposed congestion pricing zone (CPZ); this is true not only in Manhattan but in the outer boroughs and the surrounding suburban counties. For example, only 5.1% of workers from Rockland County drive alone to the proposed CPZ. In Westchester, 3.4% of workers drive alone to the CPZ. In Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the percentages are even lower.

Fact sheets containing a breakdown of commuting patterns by mode and destination, vehicle ownership statistics, and the average incomes of vehicle-owning households and non-vehicle-owning households are available online. The fact sheets cover counties and City Council, state Assembly, state Senate, and U.S. Congressional districts in the New York metropolitan area.

Erik Shilling reports:

Though many agreed that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to charge cars and trucks to enter parts of Manhattan could be tweaked, a majority of those who spoke in last night's Traffic Congestion Mitigation hearing in the Bronx expressed their support.

The theater at Hostos Community College was quite a bit less than half full, and traffic outside later in the night was light. Many at the meeting said turn out was low because of Halloween. Marc Shaw, the chairman of the Congestion Mitigation Commission and the leader of the hearing, said that another Bronx hearing would be held because of the turnout and the holiday, though he did not name a date.

The Commission sponsored the hearing, one of seven around the city, to field public comments about the mayor's plan.

The strongest opposition came from the night's first speaker, State Assemblyman Jeff Dinowitz. He argued that the plan was discriminatory, that it would exacerbate the Bronx's parking problems, and that there were better alternatives.

He also suggested that instead of raising money for public transportation with congestion pricing, the city should consider higher car registration fees, or even an additional gas tax. "I know that's not popular," Dinowitz said, "But this plan needs to be rejected."

Both Dinowitz and City Councilman Oliver Koppel both vehemently rejected the plan's toll credits for bridge and tunnel fees already paid to get into the city. They both said this was an unfair benefit to commuters coming from New Jersey and other places outside the city. Koppel has said that he is "leaning for" congestion pricing in past remarks.

Though Halloween may have dampened turnout, the night's testimony was surprising for the number of supporters that spoke.

Sandy Noel, a Bronxite, student, and working mother, said she strongly supports congestion pricing.

"Charging drivers makes good sense to me," Noel said. She attends college in Lower Manhattan, and said she "feels like Ms. Pacman everyday just to get to school on time."

Read more...

Mayor Bloomberg and city agency commissioners answered questions in Riverdale last night.

Megan Chuchmach reports:

The auditorium at PS 24 in Riverdale was packed Tuesday night, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his commissioners entertained an estimated couple hundred Bronx residents at a town hall-esque style meeting organized by the Northwest Bronx Democratic Alliance and the Riverdale Community Association.

There was no dancing or singing, but the Mayor did crack a couple jokes and laughed off the possibility of a run for President. All jokes aside, Bloomberg did what he came to do: answer questions and discuss issues ranging from community to city levels.

The night seemed to get off to a good start, beginning with a first question addressing Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal, which has received a cool reception in the northwest Bronx neighborhood.

Bloomberg said the plan intended "to raise money to give people the mass transit that is the alternative to them driving their cars." When another audience member raised the issue of limited Riverdale parking, the pro-mass transit Bloomberg responded that fewer parking spaces mean less people buying and driving cars. Period.

Bloomberg admitted the issue of tolls was highly contentious in the plan, but said he didn't want to leave office without at least attempting to fix the City's gridlocked transportation systems.

"I don't know better than anybody else how much people will change their driving habits," Bloomberg said. "But I do know how much money it will bring in." The proposal, he said, brings in $354.5 million alone from the federal government, which chose the City as a pilot city to test the plan.

And, besides, he added, "If we're going to do something about the air that we breathe, then we've go to do something."

Read more...

And we thought Bloomberg had a tough crowd...

Filed by Megan Chuchmach:

Parking at the Riverdale Temple in the Bronx was at a premium Thursday night, with cars lining Independence Avenue in front and packing the lot out back. Inside, the owners of those cars, for the most part, raised a stink about Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan.

"Something needs to be done about the traffic, but not the way it is in its current proposal," Riverdale resident Helen Morik said at the event, a pricing forum hosted by Bronx state Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz.

That was the common theme among residents of the 81st Assembly District, clearly mostly motorists, who came to listen to Kathryn Wylde speak for and Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky speak against Bloomberg's proposed plan to combat Manhattan traffic problems. Wylde and Brodsky are both members of the Congestion Mitigation Commission.

Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, argued that people who drive cars from the Bronx into Manhattan shouldn't be exempt from helping ease the plague of traffic congestion.

"We all need to share the burden," Wylde said. "The only solution is to figure out how to discourage people from driving into Manhattan." She said the city is laden with a $13 billion a year price tag for excessive congestion, which is exhausting the economy and costing jobs.

Brodsky, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, shot back that the pricing plan is "sticking it to the middle class and the poor." He said he is fighting the principle of charging taxpayers for access to public goods, not the $8 itself.

Dinowitz, a frank critic of the congestion pricing plan, argued that Bloomberg's proposal would make the Bronx a huge parking lot, forcing Bronxites to suffer extra traffic, extra parking and extra fees.

Read more...