Streetsblog New York City

A Monday editorial from Crain's questioned the wisdom of sacrificing MTA head Lee Sander as part of any transit rescue plan, as rumors swirl that Governor David Paterson wants Marc Shaw to return to the agency's top spot.

While making the seemingly obvious argument that maintaining a healthy transit system is vital to the region's economy, the piece (behind the Crain's pay wall) lays blame on the Pataki administration -- during which Shaw previously served as MTA CEO -- for having "loaded up the MTA with debt that’s now coming home to roost."

[Sander] has become a target for those who believe the MTA is bloated and wasteful. In truth, Mr. Sander has wisely streamlined operations and cut costs in his two years in the post. He hasn’t solved all of the MTA’s problems. Who could in such a short time? And he hasn’t been the most effective politician in selling what he has done. But is that really a fault? Shouldn’t the job go to a seasoned transportation professional rather than a politician?

We asked MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan about cost-cutting measures initiated under Sander. The list is pretty extensive. Donovan points to the following efficiencies imposed "even as demand is at levels not seen since the early 1950s": elimination of 410 administrative positions; establishment of Regional Bus Operations, merging three companies into one; creation of a Business Service Center to "consolidate duplicative back office functions"; assignment of managers to oversee individual subway lines; formation of a blue-ribbon panel to "encourage competition and increase bidding on capital construction projects"; and increases in advertising revenue "from $38 million in 1997 to $125 million in 2008."

Read more...

Marc Shaw, former chair of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, caused something of a stir in the local press on Friday, when he predicted that congestion pricing would "rise again" as a proposal to toll East River bridges and a cordon across 60th street. Speaking at a panel discussion at the RPA's Regional Assembly, Shaw said he had been told by Richard Ravitch, the one-time MTA head who's been asked by Governor Paterson to devise ways to shore up the agency's finances, that pricing is "on his agenda."

With the MTA staring at a $17 billion hole in its next capital plan, pricing or new tolls may well be on the table, but the crystal ball is very cloudy at this point. Many variables are still in play. It's not clear yet, for instance, when the Ravitch panel will make its final recommendations, what form the proposal will take, or even who else will serve with him.

Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign said a likely scenario would be for the Ravitch panel to release its recommendations after the elections this fall. In a brief phone interview yesterday, he speculated that a pricing variant, if proposed, would be one of multiple options the panel presents. "They’re going to have to come up with a menu," he said, "because if they put all their eggs in one basket it’s going to be difficult."

Read more...

As former deputy mayor and Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission Chair Marc Shaw predicts that congestion pricing may re-emerge soon in the form a proposal to toll 60th Street and the East River bridges, the Daily Politics reports that Ted Kheel is planning to put up $1 million to promote his free transit plan heading into the 2009 mayoral election.

"If I was half my age, I would run for mayor in 2009 on the issue," said the 93-year-old Kheel, who has already met with what a spokesman described as "one serious mayoral contender who showed interest in the free transit idea," although he declined to reveal which would-be candidate that was.

Kheel plans a multifaceted campaign to keep congestion pricing in the news that will include advertising and coalition building. No further details were immediately available.

"I now see free mass transit as the key to the resolution of traffic congestion, a problem cities throughout the world face, I am now prepared to spend an additional million dollars to save the city I was born in from choking on automobiles."

The Kheel plan would double the proposed congestion charge for private autos to $16 ($32 for trucks) and eliminate transit fares.

Today's the day.

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission is expected to sign off on a condensed version of the Bloomberg administration's original pricing proposal today, one with a northern boundary of 60th Street (rather than 86th) and no charges for trips that begin within Manhattan's Central Business District. Higher parking rates and a taxi surcharge could also be included, but other details -- such as New Jersey drivers avoiding congestion fees through toll credits -- are likely to be left unresolved.

TCMC Chairman Marc Shaw met privately yesterday with Assembly Democrats, who reportedly expressed their opinion of the plan no uncertain terms.

Here are some choice bits from today's papers.

From the Times: 

"I would say that the idea of congestion pricing and the commission's proposals got hammered, and it was in a comprehensive way," said Rory I. Lancman, a Queens assemblyman who attended the meeting. "Every aspect of the proposals were hashed out, were analyzed and were found to be wanting."

Mr. Shaw has been making the rounds in Albany as he tries to drum up support for a traffic-busting plan in advance of the commission's vote.

"Marc stood there for three hours and took his beating like a man," Mr. Lancman said.

Read more...

With its report released the day before, there wasn't a lot of news to be found at yesterday's meeting of the Congestion Mitigation Commission. There was, however, some good political theater and, with the deadline to produce a recommendation approaching, influential commissioners began staking out their positions.

The day's agenda was to discuss the four alternative traffic mitigation plans presented in the report. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, as usual, had questions. Would the alternative plans include an exemption from environmental review or a residential parking permit program? Do they address government parking placards or include commitments to have transit improvements in place before the pricing system is turned on?

The back and forth went on for a while, Brodsky suggesting through his questions that none of the traffic mitigation plans were detailed enough for responsible legislators to take a vote.

While the tone of the discussion was spirited and collegial, at a certain point, Shaw, it seemed, had enough of Brodsky's nitpicking. "Look," he said:

There are only two ways to reduce congestion. Less people come to work or you improve mass transit. We don't want less people to come to work and the only way to improve mass transit is with money and resources which we don't have. The City and State are, relatively speaking, going to be relatively broke as we put together the next MTA capital plan. This congestion pricing plan is one of the best hopes for this town to fund the next MTA capital plan.

In other words, as James Carville might put it, "It's about the MTA capital plan, stupid."

Read more...

One of four options presented in the Traffic Mitigation Commission's Interim Report. Download the report.

When the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meets today, it is expected to deliberate four proposed alternatives to Mayor Bloomberg's original congestion pricing plan. While Chairman Marc Shaw writes that that the commission "may choose to modify," "combine elements" or "put forward a wholly different plan," debate has already begun in the media, focused mostly on the proposal to add tolls to all free bridges on the East and Harlem Rivers.

Under that plan, a $4 toll would be imposed on all crossings into and out of Manhattan, 24 hours a day, with higher tolls for trucks. The plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 7 percent -- qualifying the city for $354 million in federal funds -- while raising an estimated $859 million annually for transit.

Pols including Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and City Council Member John Liu are adamantly opposed to tolling the remaining bridges. Liu -- who chairs the council's transportation committee -- pre-empted today's TCMC discussion with another salvo, via the Daily News.

"You can't seal off Manhattan like that," said Liu (D-Queens), who supports congestion pricing. "To think of Manhattan as a castle surrounded by a moat will not get anybody anywhere."

The News points out that in 2006, "Although 557,043 vehicles used the nine free bridges spanning the Harlem River, only 494,576 vehicles crossed the free Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro bridges."

Another proposal, as outlined with the others in a 72-page commission report (pdf), would operate similarly to the mayor's plan, but would move the pricing boundary to 60th Street and remove the $4 fee for trips originating within the zone. It would also raise parking meter rates, eliminate the resident parking tax exemption, and impose a $1 surcharge on cab rides that start and/or end within the zone. Estimated annual revenues for the "Alternative Congestion Pricing Plan" are pegged at $520 million.

The other two plans are the "Combination Plan," which would reduce VMTs by just 3.2 percent and is apparently not considered a viable option as written, and the odd-even license plate scheme, which would raise zero dollars for transit and will ideally end up but a gleam in Richard Brodsky's eye.

Meanwhile, maverick advocate Ted Kheel grabbed some prime op-ed space in today's Daily News to push his plan to double the $8 congestion charge while making transit free. And a new Quinnipiac Poll -- released, true to form, just ahead of the congestion commission meeting -- finds that 60 percent of New Yorkers support congestion pricing to improve transit, though you still wouldn't know it from the headlines.

Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's claim that congestion pricing "smacks the middle class" was not challenged by reporters after Monday's meeting despite a recent IBO report that says otherwise. Brodsky said a carbon tax would be fairer and praised Mayor Bloomberg for suggesting it.

Department of Transportation Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller has clearly been busy. At Monday's Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meeting he presented more than a dozen separate congestion pricing scenarios. Having run each of them through NYMTC's state-of-the-art regional traffic model, Schaller delivered estimates for how each of the various pricing schemes would impact total vehicle miles traveled, costs and revenue.

Commission chairman Marc Shaw introduced the day's discussion by saying that "Everything's still on the table" while acknowledging that some of the scenarios Schaller was modeling were "obviously controversial." Shaw also went out of his way to express disappointment that the New York Times had chosen to editorialize against the idea of East River Bridge tolls "before we've even had a public discussion about it."

Schaller's Powerpoint presentation is available in its entirety below. There were a lot of numbers and transportation policy jargon but here are a few notable points:

Read more...

While we weren't looking, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver apparently had a change of heart on congestion pricing, and is reportedly now willing to go along with some version of the plan, as long as it is supported by City Council Democrats.

This little bombshell comes courtesy of the Sun:

The good news for Mayor Bloomberg is that he's likely to win some sort of "congestion pricing" plan by the spring now that the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, is on board with developing a plan to reduce Manhattan traffic by charging a fee to drivers. This is noteworthy because Mr. Silver has played the recurring role of obstructionist to some of Mr. Bloomberg's boldest ideas during the past six years.

We won't know what congestion pricing really means until much closer to the March 31 deadline for final approval from the City Council and state Legislature. We do know there's no chance the ultimate agreement will look much like the original proposal for using hundreds of cameras to charge $8 a car for all cars below 86th Street — with a rebate for any tolls drivers paid to enter Manhattan.

That initial idea actually gives a free ride to drivers who enter Manhattan via the Triborough Bridge, Midtown Tunnel or Battery Tunnel (already exactly $8 round-trip with E-Z Pass) and a big discount to New Jersey drivers (who pay $5 round-trip) with E-Z Pass. The big losers under the original plan are those drivers from Westchester, Brooklyn and Queens who currently travel free on bridges.

The final deal will likely put a bigger burden on New Jersey drivers while adding some fee for drivers who currently pay nothing to enter Manhattan. The city council is the biggest obstacle, because 30 of the 51 members hail from Brooklyn and Queens. They understand clearly how the initial "congestion pricing" plan targets their constituents.

"Congestion pricing could be three blocks with some cameras around them," quipped one person involved in the process who doesn't particularly like any of the ideas currently being floated. "But there will be something the mayor can call 'congestion pricing' by the time this is done."

Read more...

Congestion Mitigation Commission chairman Marc Shaw has a big job ahead of him.

Newsflash from Crain's New York: Congestion pricing is politically challenging: While I don't think any Streetsblog reader will be shocked by that big scoop, there are still some interesting tidbits in here. The Traffic Mitigation Commission has a new mandate, Greg David writes: "Save the mayor's plan by modifying it." If nothing else, I suppose this means that opponents have to stop calling the Commission a "sham" now. The Crain's story is available online only to subscribers. Here it is in full:

When the state legislature created a panel in June to review Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, his aides claimed victory. They maintained that a majority of members would be appointed by officials who back the scheme. The thinking was that the panel would endorse congestion pricing, and show that the alternatives would neither reduce traffic enough nor raise large sums for mass transit. The City Council and the Legislature would then ratify that conclusion.

So much for the fix being in. Today, the plan is in deep trouble. Details emerging about the cost and the onerous implementation are worrying even the plan's supporters. The mass-transit bonanza is now pegged at as little as $100 million a year, a far cry from the almost $400 million initially promised. Polls show public support declining. And the political calendar isn't favorable; a vote on the plan is scheduled a mere eight months before legislators face the voters themselves.

Now the panel has a new mandate: Save the mayor's plan by modifying it. The members may have to do so despite the mayor. Earlier this month, after Crain's reported on the revisions being considered, he seemed to dig in his heels to defend his original proposal. Maybe he hadn't been briefed on recent developments.

Marc Shaw, the former top deputy mayor who is in charge of the review, understands the new reality. He has three major objectives: Co-opt as many opponents as possible by adopting some of their alternatives, reduce the enormous administrative cost, and greatly increase the money generated for mass transit.

Read more...

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission wants to reduce the size of the proposed congestion pricing zone, replace cameras with higher parking fees, and possibly toll the East River bridges, according to a (subscription only) story by Erik Engquist in Crain's New York Business today.

A few of the steps under consideration:

• moving the northern boundary from 86th Street to 60th Street;
• "drastically" reducing the number of cameras to cut administrative costs and "mollify civil libertarians";
• retooling the toll offset proposed for New Jersey drivers;
• tolling the East River bridges (over the objection of Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz).

The Daily News says the panel is also thinking about eliminating the $4 fee for trips within the congestion zone, and creating additional, smaller zones in downtown and Midtown.

This sentence really jumped out of Engquist's article:

In place of cameras, much higher fees for on-street parking, and perhaps a new tax on garage parking, would be imposed to raise revenues and discourage driving in the central business district.

So, what does that mean? Is the Commission considering replacing congestion pricing (as defined by the federal government) in favor of more stringent and expensive parking policies? If so, will the feds still give New York City a $354.5 million grant for that?

For a refresher on the hows and whys of the original pricing proposal -- which addresses many, if not all, of the commission's concerns -- see Streetsblog's four-part interview series with PlaNYC architect Rohit Aggarwala.

In the meantime, here's the Crain's article in its entirety.

Read more...