"A real property transfer is subject to our land use review procedure," says Councilman Lew Fidler, D-Brooklyn. "I surely would object on that basis and join any lawsuit brought if it were done without our consent."

The groups fighting bridge tolls would likely challenge any plan that lacked a home rule message from the City Council.

"I realize that two bucks is not a burdensome amount, but if you think that amount will remain so low, I have a bridge to sell you," Fidler says.

What role the council might play in the MTA rescue plan, if any, remains to be seen -- as does the strength of council opposition to tolls in the face of near-immediate transit fare hikes and service reductions. With the city's delegation in Albany finally waking up to the fact that more of their constituents ride than drive, you've got to wonder how it would play -- even in the farther reaches of Brooklyn and Queens -- if council members like Fidler and John Liu tried to scuttle a workable rescue of the transit system.

It’s easy to dismiss City Councilmembers Lew Fidler and Peter Vallone, Jr. as transportation troglodytes. They’ve led the pushback against bridge tolls -- most recently at the City Council hearing this week on the Ravitch Commission recommendations -- yet neither has ever put forth a workable alternative for reducing job-killing, community-wrecking traffic congestion. Judging by their anti-toll rhetoric, you’d think that half their district drives to jobs in the Manhattan Central Business District, yet the actual percentages who do so are surprisingly meager: 5.3 percent for Fidler’s Brooklyn district and 4.4 percent for Vallone’s Queens district (plus another 1.7 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively, who carpool).

But in one respect, bridge-toll opponents may have a point: tolling equity. According to my calculations, 60 percent of the proposed Ravitch bridge tolls would be paid by Brooklyn and Queens residents. Yet these residents make only 36 percent of car trips into the CBD. The disparity would mean a hefty cross-subsidy -- worth a few hundred million dollars a year -- of the region's drivers by drivers from these two boroughs.

Whence the disparity? There are two sources. First, the Ravitch plan imposes no new tolls on auto trips into the Manhattan core that come from New Jersey and northern Manhattan; these constitute almost one-quarter of the total. Second, another 20% of trips into the CBD -- from Bronx, Westchester and other points north -- use one of the Harlem River bridges. Ravitch wants those drivers to pay less than half the standard MTA toll rate that would apply to the four East River crossings -- the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro Bridges.

Under the Bloomberg congestion pricing plan, Brooklyn and Queens actually bore a fairer share of the burden than in the Ravitch plan, in spite of Bloomberg's controversial “toll-net” provision that heavily discounted autos from New Jersey. Even so, under Bloomberg’s plan, auto trips from Brooklyn and Queens, 36 percent of the total into the CBD, would have accounted for 40 percent of toll revenues, making almost a 1-to-1 match-up. That may explain why Councilmember John Liu, from Queens, voted for the mayor’s plan but is blasting the bridge tolls provision in the Ravitch plan.

Was Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal the last word on geographical equity? Hardly. There’s no need for a cordon toll plan to include toll-nets. Nor should it give Manhattanites a free pass; an easy-to-administer surcharge on fares for medallion taxis, which are overwhelmingly used by Manhattan residents, could swell the toll-revenue pie and spread it over a broader population and income base.

Can’t someone fashion a plan along those lines? Hmm, maybe someone already has.

Streetsblog: What's your reaction to today's news?
Fidler: "Look, it would do nobody any good for one side to gloat and for the other side to sulk. We need to really get to work on the problems that we've all acknowledged. You're familiar with the musical Oklahoma? The cowmen and the farmers need to be friends."

For all the negativity on hydrogen fuel cell cars, I hope it did not escape everyone's notice that Westchester [White Plains] has entered into a pilot program. We need to incentivize the infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles. These cars are feasible today. Would you be the first one on your block to get one? We need to find a way.

Streetblog: A broad-based tax?
Fidler: "A regional payroll tax, that's my proposal. Other people have talked about a millionaire's tax. We can't let the MTA capital plan crumble. That's not the message that people who are against congestion pricing are trying to send."

Maria Baez (chair), Bronx - yes
Joseph Addabbo, Queens - no
Eric Martin Dilan, Brooklyn - no
Lewis Fidler, Brooklyn - no
Melissa Mark Viverito, Manhattan - yes
Michael McMahon, Staten Island - yes
Hiram Monserrate, Queens - yes
Joel Rivera, Bronx - yes
Larry Seabrook, Bronx - yes

In this five-minute speech, delivered at the Stonewall Democratic Club in Manhattan and captured by The Politicker, Council Member Lew Fidler draws on the 2005 mayoral campaign of Freddy Ferrer to rehash the old saw that congestion pricing would create a city of "haves" and "have-nots."

"This is its stated purpose. This is exactly how it's supposed to work, so there's no debate on this point: it allocates your ability to enter the heart of our city by who can and can not afford it."

Again, Fidler betrays his windshield perspective. Of course congestion pricing will not keep a single person from entering Lower Manhattan, as long as they can walk, bike, or pay the (up to) $2 transit fare. And, as has been stated ad nauseum on Streetsblog, the city is already stratified, only in reality the "haves" have cars and/or parking placards while the "have-nots" have MetroCards.

Judging by the tepid reception Fidler gets here, his audience seems to get this, even if the councilman does not.

In her opening remarks, Sadik-Khan mentioned that drivers entering Manhattan through the Lincoln and Holland tunnels will pay $45 million per year as a result of pricing. When Council member Joel Rivera asked about the logic behind the number, Sadik-Khan and Aggarwala explained that drivers who pay with cash instead of EZPass will not be eligible for the pricing offset. In other words, those drivers will pay both the Port Authority toll and the full pricing fee.

Pricing revenue would also come from drivers who use the tunnels during the Port Authority's daytime off-peak hours (9 a.m. - 4 p.m.), when the toll is $6. During those times, even drivers who take advantage of the pricing offset would still pay $2 towards the congestion fee. Aggarwala noted that two-thirds of all drivers who use the Hudson River tunnels would pay all or part of the fee.

In another exchange, Council member Melissa Mark-Viverito, a pricing supporter, asked whether the 367 buses to be added before pricing takes effect would be on new or existing lines. Sadik-Khan revealed that the buses will be spread among 33 existing lines and 12 new lines.

Mark-Viverito also wanted to know who would be able to veto any changes to the way congestion pricing revenue is spent. That power, said Sadik-Khan, would reside with the MTA Capital Program Review Board, currently a four-member panel that would grow to five members under the congestion pricing bill. (A rep appointed by the City Council speaker would join appointees of the governor, mayor, Senate majority leader, and Assembly speaker.) To change how congestion pricing revenue is spent, Aggarwala explained, the MTA would have to make a distinct proposal that would in turn have to be approved by the review board.

After the jump -- more from yesterday's hearing, including a back-and-forth with Streetsblog sparring partner Lew Fidler.

Before posing his allotted two questions, Fidler took the opportunity to proclaim that "PlaNYC has 120 good ideas out of 121." After pricing takes effect, he then asked, "is there anything that will guarantee that the state gives the same amount to the MTA and transportation [as it did previously]?"

Aggarwala referred Fidler to page 23 of the congestion pricing bill, which specifically says that pricing revenue will not be used to offset any state funding. This seemed to catch the council member somewhat off guard. "Wonderful, but that's not a guarantee," he said.

When Sadik-Khan brought up the latest Quinnipiac poll, which showed that New Yorkers support pricing by a 2-1 margin if the revenues are spent on transit, Fidler conjured his own -- hypothetical -- survey results: "I think if you polled New Yorkers and asked them if they think the MTA will spend that money effectively, they would say, 10-1, 'No.' You'd find a strong number of New Yorkers that would be dubious of the claim that the state won't reduce transportation funding."

Fidler's second question had to do with the cost of administering residential parking permits, which will be available to residents at no charge in the current version of the congestion pricing bill. "Other cities charge a fee for parking permits," he said. "How much will taxpayers pay for RPP if there's no fee?"

"It was made very clear to us from public input that RPP should be free," replied Sadik-Khan. She added that DOT is still developing the specifics of how RPP will operate, but that "the early estimate is $1.8 million for administration costs citywide."

Other noteworthy exchanges and facts:

• 110,000 fewer vehicles will enter the central business district every day once pricing takes effect, according to the commissioner.
  
• In response to a question from Quinn about mitigating the park-and-ride effect, Sadik-Khan said, "We don't anticipate that this will be a problem. Parking is already at 98% capacity in these neighborhoods [adjacent to the zone]. We think it's unlikely that people will drive to these neighborhoods just to park and get on the subway, but we are mindful of those concerns, so we proposed RPP so that residents have priority to park in those neighborhoods."
• When Maria Baez, chair of the State and Federal Legislation Committee, asked if the proposed $65 late fee might be lowered, the commissioner said "No," explaining that $65 is the same fine levied for a parking violation.
• Asked by Staten Island Council member Michael McMahon whether police and firefighters would be granted congestion fee exemptions, Sadik-Khan responded: "That's not our intent right now. The exemption route is a slippery slope. We are trying to make a system that makes it easier for fire trucks to get around so they can save lives. Right now they are competing with traffic."
• When McMahon opined that the proposed transit improvements for Staten Island "didn't seem like much," Aggarwala said, "The expansion in express bus service -- that's a significant investment in the second most frequent means of getting to the CBD from Staten Island [after the ferry]. For the first time in a long time, the MTA has made a commitment to look at regions that are disadvantaged in terms of transit access."

At the first part of today's congestion pricing hearings, Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala, director of the Office for Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, fielded questions from the City Council's nine-member State and Federal Legislation Committee. Several other Council members, including Speaker Christine Quinn, were also there to ask questions, and the chamber was packed with supporters of both pro- and anti-pricing groups.

The hearing followed word this morning that State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has introduced a congestion pricing bill in Albany -- the same legislation that Governor Paterson announced on Friday, which is based on the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. Quinn began the proceedings with a short but full-throated speech in support of pricing, saying, "The benefits so far outweigh any of the negatives, the concept of inaction is simply, in my opinion, not an option. We have to seize this moment to create a sustainable revenue source for mass transit." Then, after Sadik-Khan delivered her comments (which got big applause), the Council members started popping questions.

Two Council members who have not declared a position on pricing took part in the Q&A during the time I was there to observe. One was Larry Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat who has been identified as a possible swing vote on the committee. "How are we going to say these projects won't stay on the drawing board for another 30 years?" he asked, referring to projects in the MTA capital plan targeted for the Bronx.

Sadik-Khan assured him about the lock box language in the current bill, adding, "I don't see any other way to fund the projects that your district so desperately needs without the revenues from the congestion pricing program." Seabrook repeated his position that the lock box must be ironclad, but appeared satisfied that his concerns had been addressed, wrapping up by thanking the commissioner for considering his district.

The other undecided Council member was Tish James, who represents Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. James first asked if low-income New Yorkers, especially those who have to make trips to Manhattan hospitals, would receive any discount under the current plan. Aggarwala responded by pointing out that most New Yorkers rely on transit or for-hire vehicles to make hospital trips. The transit riders will receive better service, he said, and cab fare will be lower as a result of reduced travel times, yielding a de facto drop in the cost of hospital trips.

James also reiterated Anthony Weiner's claim that pricing will give the federal government an excuse to reduce transit funding for New York, but seemed to back down from that position after Sadik-Khan and Aggarwala rebutted it. "What gave me consolation is that [the Bush] administration is a lame duck and their days are numbered," James said.

Stay tuned for more highlights, and don't forget tonight's hearing, when the council will receive public testimony.

Brooklyn Diary

Where in the world can an elected official park these days without earning the wrath of his fellow Brooklynites?

A silver Infiniti belonging to Councilman Lew Fidler -- a vocal congestion pricing critic -- was spotted last Thursday parked on a pedestrian plaza near Borough Hall that has become something of a go-to spot for law-bending city employees.

But it wasn't the only time last week the unlucky Canarsie politician stumbled into a parking problem. Just a day earlier, Fidler was slipped an angry note on his windshield after parking directly above a nearby subway grate.

"I did it," said a flustered Fidler after our spies caught the pol. "I'm not going to apologize for it. I thought it would be better than parking on the subway grate."

Congestion pricing's first test in the City Council will be a vote this month by the State and Federal Legislation Committee, chaired by Maria Baez, D-Bronx. Speaker Christine Quinn, a pricing supporter, gave the measure a boost by assigning it to Baez's panel instead of the Finance Committee, chaired by pricing opponent David Weprin, who had requested it. Quinn added two members to Baez’s committee last fall, improving the plan’s chances for passage. But committee member Lew Fidler, D-Brooklyn, says the nine-member panel is split. He pegs the uncommitted Larry Seabrook, D-Bronx, as a potential swing vote.

Seabrook is one of 20 council members to sign the letter requesting "fairer" fees be assessed on New Jersey drivers as part of any congestion pricing plan. He is also one of eight council members to officially endorse PlaNYC last June.

Crain's also notes that Fidler predicts a close vote in the council as a whole, while John Liu believes pricing will pass after some tinkering to make it easier for Albany to swallow.

Move over, Ted Kheel. On the eve of the Congestion Mitigation Commission deadline to sign off on some form of congestion pricing, Lew Fidler tells the Observer he will introduce his own 9 CARAT STONE plan to his colleagues on the City Council tomorrow.

The Fidler Tax'n'Tunnel proposal, for those who've somehow forgotten, would avoid congestion pricing by, among other measures, increasing parking rates and traffic violation fees, building $18 billion in tunnel infrastructure, removing one-way truck tolls, moving city agencies out of Manhattan's Central Business District, and convincing the federal government and/or automakers to develop hydrogen cell vehicles. It would be paid for through a one-third of one percent regional payroll tax.

Fidler says his support is diverse. "I want to be very clear," he told me. "I have co-sponsors for elements of this plan that are ardently in favor of congestion pricing, ardently against it, and people who haven't yet committed. But even if they're in favor of congestion pricing, and they put their name next to one of my resolution points, they think that point is a good idea, and some of them [the resolutions] survive with or without congestion pricing."

Fidler said it's not likely his proposal will go to a vote before congestion pricing, since in addition to the mayor, the City Council Speaker supports congestion pricing. "What's wrong is my plan isn't part of the debate," Fidler says.

Fidler's plan was analyzed by Environmental Defense and the Pratt Center for Community Development last year, who concluded that it, along with proposals by Congressman Anthony Weiner and Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free, would promote driving.

Photo: Lila Glogowsky

About 60 people came to Medgar Evers College in Crown Heights and weighed in on the five options presented in the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission's interim report. It quickly became clear that the evening was really a referendum on the two pricing proposals in the report; none of the other options were viewed as viable. By the time it was over, half the audience had testified before commission members Elizabeth Yeampierre, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, and Gene Russianoff. (Richard Brodsky, who came to the Brooklyn hearing instead of the one closest to his Westchester district, left before it ended and missed several pieces of testimony.)

Most encouraging for pricing advocates: Several residents without any group affiliation testified, expressing a unanimous desire for better transit, cleaner air, and safer streets. Congestion pricing, they said, was the surest means to achieve those objectives. (Noah Budnick of Transportation Alternatives emailed us to report that pro-pricing speakers out-numbered anti- in the Bronx and Queens as well.)

But first the elected officials spoke, leading off with Congressman Anthony Weiner. In his allotted four minutes, he repeated the canard that congestion pricing is a conservative ploy to enact a "radical change and reduction in the amount of [federal] transit funding we receive." Then Council Member Lew Fidler and Assemblymen Hakeem Jeffries, Vito Lopez, Alan Maisel, and Alec Brook-Krasny each took a turn to bash both pricing proposals (their most common refrain: "too Manhattan-centric").

The one semi-exception among electeds was Council Member Tish James...

who skipped the meeting but had an aide read a statement that in order to curb asthma rates, "residential parking permits are an absolute necessity" for any areas immediately outside the congestion zone. Many of the community board reps and neighborhood association members who followed echoed that argument, offering support if a permit plan was attached to pricing, because they feared a park-and-ride spillover effect.

The non-profits in attendance came out strongly in favor of the commission's alternative pricing plan (which would raise more money at a lower cost than the Mayor's plan), countering the assertions of previous speakers with hard numbers. Here's a snippet delivered by Wiley Norvell of TA:

Congestion pricing will benefit the entire city, not just Manhattan. Nearly three-quarters of the congestion reduction from pricing will take place outside Manhattan. 40% of traffic in the neighborhoods of Downtown Brooklyn is from Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridge-bound motorists avoiding the Battery Tunnel toll. Congestion pricing, by equalizing tolls, will cut congestion and finally give traffic relief to neighborhoods adjacent to the free bridges. It is estimated that pricing will reduce traffic by 29% in Downtown Brooklyn and by 24% in North Brooklyn. That is staggering.

Personal note: While the pricing advocates were testifying, I was in a politician sandwich, sitting between two pairs of electeds, and could overhear their snickering and backslapping.

When the "ordinary people" got their chance to speak, they also endorsed the alternative pricing plan by a wide margin. The politicians had already left at that point, a fact that wasn't lost on Sunset Park resident Kay Young. "I have to note the seeming disconnect between our elected officials and everyone else," he said.

They haven't done their homework. They cite no statistics, just general specters. The fact that they left is unbelievable. They didn't even stay to listen to their constituents.

| View | Upload your own

Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller's team at the Department of Transportation has been taking ideas offered up by Traffic Mitigation Commission members and running them through NYMTC's regional traffic model. Schaller's job is to help the Commission determine how effective each of these ideas will be in cutting traffic and reducing total vehicle miles traveled in New York City. To keep its $354.5 million federal transportation grant, the City must reduce VMT 6.3 percent using road pricing.

Schaller presented his findings at yesterday's Commission meeting. You can flip through his presentation above (though, I recommend clicking through to the Slideshare web site and viewing the larger version). Since the first and most important slide is too small to read, here is the list of the traffic reduction ideas that Schaller's team has been modeling either as alternatives, supplements or modifications to Mayor Bloomberg's original proposal (you'll note that Lew Fidler Tax'n'Tunnel plan didn't make the cut):

• Night delivery incentives
• Telecommuting incentives
• Increasing the cost of parking in the CBD
• Taxi stands
• Surcharge on taxi and livery fares
• East River Bridge tolls
• License plate rationing
• Required carpooling
• Creation of High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes
• Changing the northern boundary
• Charging to drive on the FDR and West Street
• Changing the hours / variable charges
• Changes to the toll credit policy
• Exempt hybrids.

Aside from Assembly member Richard Brodsky's continued treatment of the scrupulous, forthright Schaller as the quintessential evil government bureaucrat (Brodsky knows exactly how important it is to attack the credibility of the "Keeper of the 6.3%"), the highlight of yesterday's hearing, for me, was an exchange towards the end on government employee parking permits.

Brodsky was pressing Schaller for more detailed modeling of the VMT impact of reducing the number of government-issued parking placards when Teamsters president Gary LaBarbera, pictured right, cut in with strong objections. LaBarbera didn't want Schaller or anyone to do any additional modeling -- or talking -- about government-issued parking permits. I couldn't quite type fast enough to keep up with him, but this is pretty close to exactly what he said:

Parking permits are a form of compensation for teachers, firefighters and police officers. I don't believe in employees losing benefits or compensation. We've got to think seriously before we talk about taking away this benefit from one segment of our community; teachers, firefighters and police officers.

So, there you have it. Though you won't find it accounted for in any City budget, spelled out in any City employee contract, or fought over in any recent negotiation, union leadership believes government-issued parking permits are "a form of compensation." Now that LaBarbera's put it on the table, the City and the unions can finally begin to account for this "form of compensation" and talk about exactly how much of it New York City's hard-working civil servants are actually owed.

Does the Rubber Meet the Road? Investigating the Alternatives to Congestion Pricing, a 14-page study (pdf) issued by Environmental Defense and the Pratt Center for Community Development, breaks it down as follows.

Anthony Weiner's Reducing Traffic and Improving Our Environment: An Alternative to the Car Tax: Many aspects of this proposal are similar to the PlaNYC's original congestion pricing scheme. However, Congressman Weiner would limit congestion pricing to trucks only and would take a series of steps to open up more existing road space for faster-moving traffic, such as reducing alternate side street parking, and increasing traffic law enforcement, that would attract more traffic in the long run. He also suggests large-scale, long-term capital investments, such as building a Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel, that while essential for long-term regional planning, cannot address traffic with the immediacy and revenue-generating capacity of congestion pricing.

Lew Fidler's 9 Carat Stone Plan: This plan to fund long term transportation projects, including three major tunnels requiring massive capital investment, essentially levies a regional payroll tax that would support the state's general fund and not be dedicated to transportation investment, unlike tolls. Councilman Fidler proposes hydrogen powered cars, which automakers and scientists agree are many years and breakthroughs away from being practical and commercially viable. He supplements these ideas with short term measures such as increased truck loading zones and enforcement of traffic laws that, while perhaps good to speed traffic flow and ensure better safety, are not likely to achieve significant reductions in traffic volumes. Other elements of Councilman Fidler's plan, such as moving government offices from Manhattan to the other boroughs, would simply displace current traffic to new locations, and to the extent that those locations are less centrally-located in the transit system, there would likely be a net increase in traffic overall.

Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free's Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District: This plan, primarily supported by AAA, the Metropolitan Parking Association and the Queens Civic Congress, among others, combines several separate measures that collectively claim to meet and exceed the 6.3% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction of the mayor's plan. In fact, many will simply make driving easier in the Central Business District, thus probably attracting more drivers over time. Furthermore, the report's additive approach for totaling VMT reduction overstates the results dramatically, double-counting many overlapping traffic reduction measures.

"Unlike congestion pricing, these alternatives would encourage driving -- not discourage it -- and as a result attract more traffic in the long term," says Michael Replogle, transportation director for Environmental Defense and the report's primary author, via media release. "They also fail to match the criteria required by the federal grant, by state law, and the reality test for effectiveness, timeliness and revenue potential."

"Alternative proposals to fund mass transit through broad income and payroll tax increases are like taking a sledgehammer to a nail because they place special burdens on low and middle income residents," says Joan Byron, Director of the Sustainability and Environmental Justice Initiative of The Pratt Center. "In contrast, a congestion pricing plan benefits lower-income folks most and burdens them least since the vast majority of them rely on public transportation, and do not drive into Manhattan's zone."

Instead of supporting congestion pricing, Councilman Lew Fidler wants to impose billions of dollars in payroll taxes and dig three new tunnels ("Tunnel visions," Nov. 13). If Fidler truly wants to help those who rely on mass transit, he should recognize that they don't need tax hikes or holes in the ground, but the immediate transit improvements that congestion pricing would provide.

Paul Steely White
Transportation Alternatives

OK, I'll admit it. I just miss mixing it up with Fidler in the comments section. Lew, where'd ya go?

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. 

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.

Subject: Plan to be Revealed to go up against Mayor's Congestion Pricing

A major announcement will soon be made that will reveal a whole new plan for how NYC will handle traffic congestion, mass transit, air pollution and land re-development.  A plan so bold that it would not only give Mayor Bloomberg a run for his money, but change the pecking order of NYC's "forgotten boroughs." This supposed nine-point plan is said to be making its debut as soon as next week and is already creating a buzz within City Hall.

Well, the "plan so bold" has arrived just in time for tonight's Traffic Mitigation Commission hearing in Brooklyn and Daily Politics reports that it belongs to Council member Lewis Fidler. He is calling it the 9 CARAT STONE Plan, an acronym for, Clean Our Air, Reduce All Traffic, and Support Transportation Operations in New York's Environs. Download it here.

Fidler's ambitious plan hinges on the construction of three, massive, decades-long, multi-billion dollar transportation tunnels, "forcing the issue" of hydrogen fuel-cell miracle cars, a politically poisonous regional payroll tax hike, and a series of small-bore improvements in enforcement and street management policy. He also wants to compel all city agency employees to drive to work at far-flung offices outside the central and outer borough business districts.  

If nothing else, it's great to see everyone engaged in discussion and debate about transportation policy and traffic mitigation. And the "9 CARAT STONE Plan" goes down as one of the all-time great acronyms in New York City bureaucratic history. Now, pardon me, I need to get crackin' on the Trans-Narrow Tunnel. Here are Fidler's nine points:

1. Construct 3 Critical Tunnels: a. The Cross Harbor Tunnel. b. The Trans-Narrows Tunnel.  c. The Gowanus Expressway Tunnel.
2. Force the Issue of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
   
3. Paying for it: A .033% one-third of one percent Regional Payroll Tax
4. Increase the number of metered parking spaces in the central business district and the cost of parking.
5. Increase the number of taxi stands in the CBD.
6. Getting Unloading Trucks off the Street: More loading zones and more off-street loading docks.
7. Increase enforcement and fines for violators.
8. No one way tolls for trucks.
9. Move City agencies out of the CBD and not to downtown districts in the outer boroughs.

"I am not retiring, but I have not decided what I'm going to do," Fidler said. "I'm not running for mayor, comptroller, public advocate of borough president. There are lots of ways to serve in government, and they're not always elected positions...I enjoy being a councilman more than I could tell you. I wish I wasn't term-limited, but I'm not going to run for an office I'm not likely to win, trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, just to keep the parking permit."

Tell it like it is, Lewis!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooklyn Council member Lew Fidler (above) is circulating an anti-congestion pricing resolution urging Mayor Bloomberg to oppose any form of road pricing. Fidler's resolution appears to be a shot across the bow in preparation for the mayor's forthcoming Long-Term Planning and Sustainability speech. Last week, Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff hinted that the speech would include "bold and creative" transportation policy ideas that come with a cost. Fidler, reportedly, will announce his resolution this coming Wednesday. 

In light of that, below is a sneak peak at a new study by transportation consultant Bruce Schaller (download the page here). Analyzing 2000 census data, Schaller found that the vast majority of Fidler's constituents who commute to Manhattan's Central Business Distrcit use transit -- not automobiles. That's right: Even in deepest southern Brooklyn 75% of commuters use transit to get to Manhattan south of 59th Street. Schaller's analysis also explodes the myth of congestion pricing "elitism." In Lew Fidler's district, the average automobile commuter earns about 14% more than the average transit user.

Photo: Lisa Glogowsky