An RPP program, which would establish districts within the city where car owners must display permits to park legally in most on-street spaces, needs Albany's assent to become law. Assembly Member Joan Millman and State Senator Daniel Squadron have introduced bills in their respective chambers, with the details of the permit system left up to the city. Council Member David Yassky is carrying the banner for RPP at City Hall.

This is not the first time lawmakers have turned their attention to residential permit parking. Most recently, RPP got a serious look during last year's congestion pricing debate, when DOT devised a plan to assuage fears that car commuters would cram on-street parking spaces just outside the cordon zone.

That version of RPP included only nominal permit fees -- just enough to cover the cost of running the program. This time around, the bill's sponsors are touting permit fees as a new revenue source for the MTA. Separated from congestion pricing, however, an RPP system won't pack quite the same punch. Reports the News:

A Transportation Department spokesman said permits alone aren't enough to solve parking problems, and should be accompanied by a congestion pricing plan.

"Without such a plan, we don't believe this bill will actually solve neighborhood parking problems," said Transportation Department spokesman Seth Solomonow.

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.  

From: Assemblywoman Joan Millman [mailto:millmaj@assembly.state.ny.us]

Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 4:51 PM

Subject: Re: Online Contact Form

April 7, 2008

Thank you for your communication regarding congestion pricing. I am attaching a copy of my statement to be made today on the floor of the Assembly. At this point I still do not know if the Mayor's congestion pricing plan will be voted on today.

Thank you for sharing your views with me.

Sincerely,
Joan L. Millman
Member of Assembly

*Statement by Assemblywoman Joan L. Millman on **April 7, 2008***

Mr. Speaker, on the bill, I will vote yes on the Congestion Pricing Plan. I will vote yes even though I still have major concerns and questions about the plan itself.

I agree too many motorists drive gas guzzling vehicles, polluting our air, causing high rates of asthma.
 

Representing downtown Brooklyn, I know too well the traffic jams caused by the hundreds of cars, taxis, trucks and limos traveling into Manhattan via the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges. For years I have requested that city, state, and federal officials study the effect of the one-way toll on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridgewith no success. We all know trucks travel from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, through Staten Island, enter the Gowanus Expressway on their way to Manhattan, then exit via the George Washington Bridge never paying a toll. And when the traffic builds up, these same trucks exit the Gowanus Expressway and travel through our brownstone neighborhoods.

I suggested at a Public Hearing that trucks make Manhattan deliveries before 7 AM and after 6 PM. I suggested increased ferry service, the creation of a three-person HOV Zone in Manhattan, increased accessibility at all our subways and expansion of bicycle lanes. None of these suggestions made their way into the final plan.

Another major concern is the lack of accountability from the MTA, the same MTA who sold the Atlantic Yards at a fraction of its worth.

This is the same MTA who has warehoused their downtown building for years, using it for storage and has now committed $150 million in its 5-Year Capital Plan for renovation.

So today I vote for this plan with the hope the discussion continues. My suggestions as well as those of my colleagues deserve a fair hearing.

All of us want, need and demand a superior mass transportation system, cleaner air, and a pedestrian friendlier city.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

With the midnight deadline to receive $354 million in federal aid approaching in a matter of hours, now is the last chance to call your representatives in Albany to express your support, no matter where they may stand on the issue. And don't forget, when you call you can have these handy fact sheets at your disposal.

As we learned from reader reports last week, several representatives who seem to be leaning against pricing in the press are in fact uncommitted. Your phone calls today will make a difference.

Every state legislator should hear as often as possible from pricing supporters, but here are a few that Streetsbloggers have identified as fence-sitters, and what our readers heard when they called.

Hakeem Jeffries. Despite signals that he does not favor pricing, the Brooklyn Assemblyman has yet to decide how he will vote:

• "i finally got an email back from Jeffries... in his email he said he was still "keeping an open mind" but that his colleagues in the assembly still had concerns that had to be addressed."

Brooklyn Assemblywoman Joan Millman:

• "Assemblywoman Millman supports the concept of congestion pricing, but is hung up on getting assurances from the mayor about the lock box, transit improvements, and handicap access to subway stations."

Upper West Side Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell:

• "I called O'Donnell's office. The staffer on the phone said he "supports the goals" of CP but "has many questions." I gave my spiel on why we need CP."

Lower Manhattan Assemblywoman Deborah Glick:

• "Called Glick’s office. Was told repeatedly that Glick does not have a position on this issue which is bizarre because all of lower Manhattan would benefit from the reduction of trucks heading over the bridges and into the Holland tunnel."
  

Queens Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan:

• "I spoke to a staff member in Catherine Nolan's office. She said Nolan currently has no opinion."

I just got off a lengthy phone call with a staffer at Joan Millman's Albany office. She was very pretty well versed on the subject and she assured me that Assemblywoman Millman supports the concept of congestion pricing, but is hung up on getting assurances from the mayor about the lock box, transit improvements, and handicap access to subway stations. She mentioned that the 9th Street subway station has no handicap access, and that they have been complaining about this for years, but the city says there isn't enough money to add it.

She said that about 70% of the constituents that have emailed, written and called are in support of the plan -- but they want guarantees that the money will in fact be used for transit. I told her that my personal favorite aspect to the plan is that it will be a clear signal to the public that the government does not want them to drive cars, if they can avoid it. The staffer agreed with me on that. I also pointed out to her that I was a union member, and all of my "working class" friends do not own cars, and that the argument that Brodsky types have been making do not hold any water. She agreed with that too.

Mainly, her office seems to be kind of pissed off at the mayor for not being forthright with the information they have asked for since the idea was first floated. It was my impression that Millman will vote yes, but she will be biting her lip as she does it.

The New York League of Conservation Voters announced earlier this month that it is forming a new political action committee called Climate Action PAC. Sitting at the top of the PAC's legislative agenda: getting congestion pricing passed.

When it comes to climate impact, said NYLCV spokesman Dan Hendrick, "congestion pricing is the most sweeping proposal on the table; it's head and shoulders above the rest of what's out there." The Climate Action PAC will spend about $300,000 on elections this fall (you can donate online), to be divvied up among six races for seats in the state Legislature, Hendrick projects. Pricing votes will also be the number one factor that NYLCV considers in making its next round of endorsements for state legislators and City Council members.

"We've signaled that this congestion pricing legislation could give us a quantum leap in terms of improved mass transit and cleaner air," said Hendrick. "We're not only going to weigh this heavily when making endorsements, but how people vote on congestion pricing will weigh very heavily in how we use the PAC money."

While funding challengers is riskier than supporting incumbents, threatening pricing foes and undecideds with the stick of a well-funded opponent could have a more immediate impact on the vote at hand. The PAC is still weighing its options on this point. Asked whether candidates who challenge anti-pricing incumbents would be targeted for PAC funds, Hendrick said, "We would definitely consider that."

NYLCV also rates council members on an environmental scorecard. Council members' pricing votes will go a long way towards determining whether they receive a positive score heading into 2009 city elections. "We're gonna give a lot of extra weight to congestion pricing [in the next scorecard]," said Hendrick. "You're going to have a significantly lower score if you vote against it."

A quick glance at NYLCV's 2006 scorecard [PDF] indicates that several Council members who currently enjoy positive ratings may see their scores drop. The following Council members all had 2005-2006 scores of 63 percent or higher, but have indicated that they are undecided or opposed to pricing: Bill de Blasio, Alan Gerson, Jessica Lappin, James Gennaro, Eric Gioia, Peter Vallone, David Weprin, Thomas White, Charles Barron, Lew Fidler, Vincent Gentile, Dominic Recchia and Michael McMahon.

While all of the above, with the exception of Lappin and White, will be term-limited out of the council come 2009, de Blasio and Barron are running for Brooklyn Borough President, and Vallone is leaning towards running for Queens Borough President. Weprin is campaigning for Comptroller, and Gioia is running for Public Advocate having promised to manage a carbon-neutral campaign. Gennaro, meanwhile, chairs the Council's committee on environmental protection.

NYLCV has operated a PAC for 15 years, but the newly unveiled Climate Action PAC has more resources at its disposal than its previous incarnation. Last year the NYLCV PAC spent $110,000, helping three candidates for municipal office (in Brookhaven, Schenectady, and Yonkers) attain victory.

After the vote on congestion pricing has been settled, urban issues will continue to be a focus of the PAC. "The whole thing about global warming is that it's redefined what pollution is," said Hendrick. "The connection between transit and the environment is much more obvious to people now."

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."

Unlike Commission members Vivian Cook and Denny Farrell, Richard Robbins' daughter was at the hearing.

Councilmember Bill de Blasio, like Millman, represents a district heavily burdened by regional traffic congestion. But he has his sights set on Brooklyn Borough Hall these days. So, after complimenting fellow Brooklyn Council member Lew Fidler's "bold" plan to raise payroll taxes, build three new tunnels, and wait for General Motors to sell hydrogen cars, De Blasio noted that Bloomberg's plan lacked guarantees and was executed in the last throes of its administration. "I appreciate the goals of congestion pricing, but there are too many unanswerable questions to move forward," De Blasio said.

As a departure from the Brooklyn party line, David Yassky pledged his support for the Bloomberg plan, but on the condition that improvements to mass transit be implemented beforehand.

Long Island Assembly member Michelle Schimel was a surprising voice in favor of congestion pricing and more livable streets. "New York must be more human, more walkable, more bikeable," she said. Schimel added that she took the LIRR and subway to reach the hearing.

The most persuasive plea for congestion pricing came from a group of young people with the United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset Park (UPROSE), a community group who say that the Gowanus Expressway is poisoning the neighborhood. Jennifer Casamayor, 21, who works for UPROSE and lives in Manhattan, said, "many children are currently suffering from respiratory issues as their bodies are still developing."

A member of UPROSE watches testimony along with members of the Commission.

Another member of UPROSE, Joaquin Brito, 16, of Bayridge, delivered the best line of the night, "If you can afford the $8 for a tall latte and cookie from Starbucks you can afford congestion pricing."

Other residents took the pulpit to advocate for congestion pricing. Many cited the problems of air quality and the opportunity New York City has to be a leader against global warming.

Richard Robbins, who works for AT&T and lives in Manhattan, held his one-and-a-half-year-old daughter as he spoke at the podium (he insists she wasn't a prop, Mom was merely working late). "The system is broke," he said. "When she grows up they'll be a better system in place, we have the opportunity to do that now."

This was the second to last of seven public hearings on the issue. The crowd at Brooklyn's New York City Tech numbered at around a 100, leaving plenty of room in the Klitgord Auditorium.

Reporting by Spencer Wilking. Photos by Aaron Naparstek. 

• The mayor's congestion pricing plan will create "undue hardships for many New Yorkers." 
• The transit system is inadequate "to accommodate many of the New York City residents who currently commute to Manhattan by car," particularly the elderly and disabled.
  
• The majority of traffic into Manhattan is created by commuters from outside New York City so they should pay more.
• "Because a congestion pricing proposal of this magnitude has the potential to become a bureaucratic catastrophe, the details of administration and reinvestment must be carefully worked out well before the plan is approved."
• "While several large corporations are in support of the Mayor's plan," Millman has "not yet heard the same positive feedback from small, locally owned businesses."
  

Here is the complete text of Millman's letter:

Dear Neighbor,

I am writing in response to your recent email message regarding the Mayor's congestion pricing plan. I agree with you that, ideally, congestion pricing could generate much needed revenue for improvements to and expansion of our mass transit system, and significantly reduce the amount of traffic, pollution and emissions of greenhouses gases in New York City. Unfortunately, when I met with representatives of the Mayor's Office to discuss the details of the proposal, I was not convinced that the current plan will succeed in accomplishing these goals without creating undue hardships for many New Yorkers. I have concerns with many aspects of the Mayor's plan.

One clear concern with the plan is that the mass transit system is severely inadequate to accommodate many of the New York City residents who currently commute to Manhattan by car. In fact, the MTA's policy of removing token booth collectors and the excessive lag times for repairs to broken elevators and escalators in subway stations, are just two of the recent examples of the transit system's failure to meet the needs of the elderly, the disabled, and other commuters who have difficulties navigating stairs.

Additionally, the data provided by the Mayor's Office overwhelmingly suggests that the majority of traffic into Manhattan is created by commuters from outside New York City. I am convinced that the congestion pricing plan should take this data into account by shifting a larger portion of the burden to commuters from the northern suburbs, Long Island and New Jersey.

I also questioned the Mayor's Office about how the City would collect the fee, including administration and infrastructure changes, and they admitted that there is no firm plan to date. Under close scrutiny of estimated administration costs, implementing the proposal will be significantly more expensive and complicated than originally anticipated. There has been no concrete explanation of the process by which the generated revenues will be invested into the mass transit system, or of how much money will be used to cover the administrative costs of the program. Because a congestion pricing proposal of this magnitude has the potential to become a bureaucratic catastrophe, the details of administration and reinvestment must be carefully worked out well before the plan is approved.

Furthermore, while several large corporations are in support of the Mayor's plan, I have not yet heard the same positive feedback from small, locally owned businesses - many of which are based in Brooklyn and other boroughs but conduct transactions in Manhattan on a daily basis. I am not convinced that these small business owners will come to the same conclusion as larger corporations that can more easily absorb the additional costs. For example, the current plan makes no distinction between a delivery truck from a multimillion dollar corporation and one from a bakery in Gowanus with fewer than a dozen employees - both would be charged the $21 commercial fee. I believe that the Mayor's plan must incorporate exemptions or reduced rates, or otherwise take steps to account for these real differences.

I certainly agree we must take action to improve the air quality and traffic problems in our Borough and City, but for congestion pricing to work for New York, it will have to work for all New Yorkers. The Mayor's Office agreed to supply me with additional information on the proposed congestion pricing plan, and I hope changes to the plan will be considered to address some of my reservations. While congestion pricing may prove to be the best idea, in its present form, I have many questions and concerns about the Mayor's proposal.

Thank you for sharing your ideas with me.