Photo: Brad Aaron

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."

In addition, says Donovan:

Budget increases in recent years have come from uncontrollable factors like increases in debt service, which cost the MTA $793 million in 2002 and is projected to rise to $2.3 billion by 2012. But we are successfully trimming the expenses that we have control over. From 2004 to 2007, the MTA reduced its controllable costs by five percent. Building on that reduction, Lee Sander called on the MTA and its agencies to cut our budgets by six percent over four years. As the economic picture has darkened, he accelerated that six percent cut so that it is now required to take place over three years instead of four. All told, these cuts will result in a cumulative 11 percent budget cut.

Crain's editors also called on local business leaders -- Republicans in particular -- as well as the Real Estate Board of New York, to get behind the "fair and equitable" Ravitch plan to bolster MTA finances.

Do the likes of, say, Carl Kruger, care about Sander's streamlining efforts as long as they can continue to cast the MTA as the villain of the funding debacle?

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."

Another likely recommendation would involve raising all of the existing taxes that finance the MTA.

The panel may also release its recommendations in two parts. An early recommendation could propose stop-gap measures to fix holes in the current capital plan (which is coming unglued as a result of the economic slowdown and rising construction costs), and a later one would focus on the next plan.

Russianoff took it as a good sign that Paterson selected Ravitch, who initiated the MTA's first five-year capital plan in 1982, to lead the panel. "They’re not papering things over," he said. "It’s a serious attempt."

But all that is known for certain so far is what the governor said when he announced the creation of the panel: 

Basically, I want the commission to examine three basic issues. One is how to balance the subsidizing of the MTA Capital Plan, through the subscription of those who use the services and a broad balance of taxes for businesses and the rest of the public.

Secondly, what we want to look at are the elements of Mayor Bloomberg’s plan that all of us like, and that perhaps we can still weave them into the process.

And finally, we have to get the MTA out of its habit, which is 25 years old, of refinancing and basically covering debt with excessive borrowing.

"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.

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.

From the Sun: 

"I do not believe it will become the law of the state," Mr. Brodsky, who represents Westchester County, said during a telephone interview yesterday. "They've taken a bad plan and made it worse."

The mayor's office declined to comment, but during his weekly radio show last week, Mr. Bloomberg said that a lower boundary "would bring in less money and would leave us with another traffic problem." 

From the Post: 

"Were we not to get congestion pricing, it would have a dramatic effect on our ability to expand and modernize our system," MTA Executive Director Elliot Sander said yesterday. 

"It makes a lot more sense to put the [border] where the business district really ends," said Councilman John Liu (D-Queens), chairman of the City Council's Transportation Committee.

The administration of the plan will be less expensive "and we won't have thousands of cameras peering at us every single place," Liu added.

The final version also will probably not include tolls on now-free East and Harlem River bridges, sources said.

"Hopefully, this will finally put to bed the wild and crazy idea of bridge tolls," Liu said.

From the News:

"I wouldn't say it's dead. I would say it has major obstacles," said Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), a congestion pricing supporter.

Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) told the Daily News Wednesday the idea still has life - in part because the MTA is counting on $500 million a year in congestion pricing funds to pay for its $25 billion-plus capital spending plan.

"They can be dealt with, is what I'm saying," Silver said. 

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."

Teamsters president Gary LaBarbera is the one commissioner who Brodsky seems to treat with a noticeable sense of deference. LaBarbera added on to Shaw's thought:

I don't think we should start splitting hairs over whether this is about raising funds for the MTA or improving the environment or reducing VMT. The reality is that it's about all of those issues. Without funding for a realistic capital plan we can't continue the economic development of this region. I think it's important not to get bogged down. The capital funding is one of the critical issues that we as a Commission have to address, hopefully, in a way that will be palatable to the legislature in Albany and the City Council.

After a lengthy ramble from Assemblyman Denny Farrell about how toll booths on the Harlem River Bridges will "freeze up all of Northern Manhattan" on Yankee game nights (Response from a fellow commissioner: "Page 31 of the report says there would be no toll plazas or physical barriers where they don't already exist"), Brodsky finally stopped asking questions and laid his own cards on the table. "I have a deep philosophical objection to user fees and pricing mechanisms."  (Happy Hour? Airline tickets? The electricity bill?) He went on,

Which of the five plans reduces pollution the most and congestion the most? License plate rationing. But it doesn't generate revenues. Which is why I am for a carbon tax. Let's get it over with. The mayor proposed $15 per ton. I support the mayor. It was a national proposal but it doesn't have to be national. It could be in New York. The advantage is that the revenue would come from people who benefit from mass transit but don't necessarily use mass transit.

Long-Term Sustainability Chief Rit Aggarwala replied that a carbon tax would almost certainly need to be a federal initiative to work properly. "A carbon tax would be impractical for a municipality," Aggarwala said. "If you put a high tax on electricity in New York City you'd immediately drive out electricity intensive industries. Computer data centers, for example, would move to Westchester."

The carbon tax discussion prompted Shaw to remind the commissioners that their goal is to decide "something that's able to get accomplished."

Brodsky intensified, reminding Shaw that, traditionally, when Albany increases capital funding for transit it also gives more money to roads and bridges. "So, what's real and politically possible, Marc?" he asked. "Any mechanism that is geographically small will not pass the Albany test of linkage between roads, bridges and mass transit and you know it."

DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, who speaks sparingly in these meetings, chimed in, "This is not a tax commission. I understand the context in which Assemblyman Brodsky brought this up. But a debate over carbon taxes would more properly be considered by the State legislature. I suggest that they move forward on this."

Well played, Madame Commissioner.

With the carbon tax idea tabled, discussion turned to the idea of license plate rationing.

LaBarbera: "How do you tell a mother that your kid can only have fresh milk four out of five days a week? License plate rationing would turn the trucking industry upside down."

Shaw: "I can see the headline in the Post tomorrow: 'Brodsky Taxes Milk.'" Laughs.

Brodsky: "I move that we name all the toll plazas after Marc." More laughs.

Kathy Wylde: "The only place that ever tried rationing was Mexico City and it was fiasco."

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.

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:

• NYMTC's "Best Practices Model" was updated in September of this year. The previous model, which was used to derive the transportation data for Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC, was based on New York City's 2002 mass transit network. The updated model uses the 2005 transit network. Thanks to the opening of two more subway tracks across the Manhattan Bridge and other improvements, Schaller said, "the amount of transit service has increased over the last few years," making it more attractive and feasible for motorists to switch to transit "when you apply a pricing signal." As a result, when the numbers are run through the new model, Mayor Bloomberg's original congestion pricing plan shows an increased reduction in VMT, jumping from the intial 6.3 percent estimate to 6.7 percent. All of the data that Schaller produced for Monday's meeting was generated using the updated model.
• The reduction in VMT produced by moving the northern boundary of the pricing zone from 86th to 60th Street is "smaller than a lot of us expected," Schaller said. While the Mayor's original proposal produces a 6.7 percent VMT reduction and $420 million per year in net revenue, moving the border to 60th Street produces a 6.2 percent VMT drop and $387 million.
• The big news was that eliminating the "intrazonal charge," the $4 fee for driving a car inside the pricing zone, barely has any impact on VMT reduction while significantly reducing capital and operating costs. Moving the boundary to 60th Street while eliminating the intrazonal fee (and all of the technology required to make it work) would produce a 5.9 percent reduction in VMT along with $94 million less in capital costs and a whopping $135 million/year less in operating costs. Shaw was clearly intrigued by this scenario.
• Levying a $1 surcharge to motorists who aren't using EZPass would be "an attractive thing to have whatever the final package may be," Schaller said in a rare expression of overt opinion. Processing EZ Pass vehicles is cheaper than using license plate recognition technology.
• Plain and simple East River bridge tolls -- $8 flat fee, 24-hours-per-day, would reduce VMT 5.6 percent, would cost only $39 million/year to run (compared to the $229 million operating cost of the Mayor's plan) and would raise $531 million in net revenue (versus the Mayor's $420 million).
• Add the 60th Street cordon to the ERB tolls and use the MTA's toll rates, $4 inbound and $4 outbound, and you're looking at a whopping 13.4 percent projected reduction in VMT and net revenue of more than $1 billion. Upon seeing that scenario Teamsters president Gary LaBarbera reminded his fellow Commissioners, "truck traffic has to be considered seriously. You can't put 12 yards of concrete in the subway."
  
• After Schaller's presentation, Partnership for New York City president Kathy Wylde suggested that, in addition to road pricing, the Commission would need to propose some sort of "assessment" for on-street and garage parking, adding, "I think it's pretty clear there's a consensus here that getting rid of the intrazonal charges will result in greater revenue and greater equity" and that tolling the East River bridges would, essentially, "collect the same money from the same people but do it in a more efficient fashion."
• Shaw, who is becoming increasingly assertive in these meetings, noted that putting the fee on the bridges themselves might also allow New York City's regional transportation agencies to more easily "coordinate all of the tolls" coming in and out of the city. "One could start to look at a way to do coordinated congestion mitigation strategies for everyone coming from all sides whether it be west of the Hudson or over the East River."

 

| View | Upload your own

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."

Despite vocal opposition from Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and City Council Member David Weprin, Congestion Mitigation Commission Chair Marc Shaw has insisted that East River bridge tolls remain on the table, with Assembly Member Richard Brodsky applauding them as "a step in the right direction". What remains to be seen, tolls or no tolls, is whether the plan that emerges from the commission (now meeting as of this writing) will pick up or lose support in the council, where 20 members (plus one) were warm to the original concept back in August. Then there is the $354 million dollar question of whether the federal government can also call the final version "congestion pricing."

And, of course, what of the payoff for Silver? The Sun speculates:

Mr. Bloomberg's determination to do something about the unacceptable traffic that frustrates everyone trying to move around Manhattan is benefiting from a combination of technology and timing. Cameras can now easily read license plates to ensure drivers pay up, far different from just a few years ago when actual toll booths were needed. And there are genuine environmental benefits, making the general concept difficult to oppose in the year that green has gone mainstream.

In congestion pricing, Mr. Bloomberg seems finally to have stumbled upon a bold idea Mr. Silver will embrace. As a shrewd negotiator who's mastered the patience of waiting until the last minute, Mr. Silver will surely extract some concessions — such as more cops on the street to prevent double parking and crack down on drivers who created gridlock by blocking the box. 

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.

A number of the alternatives could easily be folded into a broader plan, though some involve political risks. One no-brainer is to sharply increase the cost of on-street parking. Another option-which would be subject to public outcry but would be very effective-is to establish taxi stands and discourage cruising. Voiding the tens of thousands of special parking permits that are abused by city workers clearly would help. Municipal unions will scream, but taking that step would convince New Yorkers that the burden of congestion pricing will be shared.

Administrative costs, now estimated at 40% of monies collected, must be trimmed.That likely will be accomplished by moving the northern boundary of the affected zone to 60th Street from 86th Street and focusing enforcement on people driving into the central business district, not those traveling within it.

Congestion pricing could raise more revenues for mass transit if tolls for tunnels and bridges aren't deducted from the congestion pricing fee. Because of imminent increases in tolls, many New Jersey residents would pay no congestion pricing fee. Imposing East River bridge tolls would be lucrative, but such a proposal might kill the plan.

Political problems will remain even if these steps are taken. While the New York media have concentrated on opposition in the boroughs outside Manhattan, legislators from suburban counties also have been vocal about what they see as a city tax on their constituents. These leaders have had a great deal of influence on Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, and they will require concessions before allowing the plan to be enacted.

Mr. Shaw proved himself to be a talented operator while on Mr. Bloomberg's staff. This policy tap dance will test even his skills.

Photo: Aaron Naparstek, September 25, 2007 Congestion Mitigation Commission meeting.

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.

Traffic plan detour
Congestion panel may move boundary, make other changes to win support

BY ERIK ENGQUIST

The commission reviewing Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal is likely to overhaul it by moving the northern boundary from 86th Street to 60th Street and simplifying enforcement.

According to people involved in the process, members of the panel believe the changes are necessary because polls and hearings show that support for the plan is shaky and hinges on whether it would generate enough mass-transit funding.

"Because of the public hearings and the issues raised by the Assembly and others, a whole range of issues is being looked at," says Marc Shaw, chairman of the commission. "The overall desire is to find a way to reduce congestion and do it in a way that doesn't have a negative impact on the economy."

The 17 commission members, appointed by city and state lawmakers, are expected to make other changes as well to increase revenues, make the fee scheme fairer to city drivers and ease privacy concerns.

The panel is awaiting projections on the impact of possible changes but appears certain to drastically reduce the hundreds of cameras proposed, many of which were to be used to track vehicles within the congestion zone. Shedding cameras would mollify civil libertarians and help slash administrative costs-initially projected to eat up 40% of revenues-to 25% or less, freeing up more money for transit projects. Better bus and subway service is essential to winning the approvals needed from the City Council and the state Legislature.

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. A 60th Street boundary would eliminate the fee for drivers who stop short of midtown and ease fears that commuters would treat residential streets above 86th Street as park-and-rides.

The New Jersey problem
A thornier matter is how much to charge suburbanites who drive into the city, especially New Jersey residents, whose congestion fees would be entirely offset by their Hudson River tolls under the mayor's plan. City lawmakers, whose support is crucial for any plan to be adopted next year, consider it unfair that revenues would come entirely from their constituents.

"Key issues for legislators will be [the amount of] revenues raised for the mass-transit budget, and equity," says Kathryn Wylde, who represents the City Council on the commission and is president of the Partnership for New York City. "They cannot swallow having some people pay a charge based on where they live, and other people, particularly non-New Yorkers, pay nothing."

But hitting toll payers with a congestion fee might discourage so many from driving that toll revenues would plunge for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs other tunnels and bridges. Both authorities rely on toll money to fund debt obligations.

"It's an issue," says Mr. Shaw, a former first deputy mayor for Mr. Bloomberg.

City, Long Island fight looms
The question of whether to let Long Island commuters avoid congestion fees could spark a battle between their Republican senators and Democratic Assembly members from the city. Under the Bloomberg plan, these drivers' Midtown Tunnel tolls would offset their $8 daily fee.

Indeed, each modification to the proposal will threaten its delicate balance.

"Changing the plan will mean revisiting all the concessions and considerations involved with the MTA and Port Authority in particular, but also the state Department of Transportation, the state of New Jersey and the jurisdictions of Long Island and Westchester," says Ms. Wylde. "It's just not that simple."

For example, tolling the East River bridges would sabotage pricing's political support in Brooklyn. "I will not support any aspect of congestion pricing if tolling of the bridges is in it," says Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. "That's off the table."

Nevertheless, Mr.Shaw says it "is something that's being looked at."

State law requires the commission to finish its work by Jan. 31, so pressure will intensify in the coming weeks. "At some point, it has to be 'Pencils down' on the research," says commission member Andrew Darrell, regional director of advocacy group Environmental Defense. "And we'll have to move forward with a plan."

The economic health of our City and State depends on robust transit infrastructure, which has become increasingly difficult to maintain, not to mention grow, using existing funding mechanisms alone.

The wisdom of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan is that, in addition to reducing traffic and helping to clean the environment, it allows for a balanced, well-financed, long-range capital program that will encourage increased use of mass transit over the long term. With a dedicated and predictable flow of revenue, New York could reliably plan and execute complex, multi-year transportation projects.

Persons wishing to present pertinent testimony to the Commission at any of the above public hearings should complete and return the enclosed reply form as soon as possible. It is important that the reply form be fully completed and returned so that persons may be notified in the event of emergency postponement or cancellation.

Oral testimony will be limited to five (5) minutes' duration. In preparing the order of witnesses, the Commission will attempt to accommodate individual requests to speak at particular times in view of special circumstances. These requests should be made on the attached reply form or communicated to the Commission as early as possible. In the absence of a special circumstance, witnesses will be scheduled in the order in which reply forms are postmarked.

Westchester County Center
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
6:00 PM
198 Central Avenue, 2nd Floor Meeting Rooms G-H
White Plains, NY

Hofstra University
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
6:00 PM
Room to be determined
Long Island, NY

Hunter College - Kaye Theater
Thursday, October 25, 2007
6:00 PM
East 68th Street Between Park & Lexington Avenue

York College Performing Art Center
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
6:00 PM
94-20 Guy R Brewer Blvd Between Liberty & Archer
Queens, NY

Hostos Community College
Main Theatre "C" Building
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
6:00 PM
Corner of 149th & Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY

New York City Tech Klitgord Auditorium
Thursday, November 1, 2007
6:00 PM
285 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY

College of Staten Island - Williamson Theater Center for The Arts
Monday, November 5, 2007
6:00 PM
2800 Victory Boulevard, Building 1P
Staten Island, NY

The form can be downloaded here and it must be returned as soon as possible to:

Andrea Miles-Cole
New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission
47-40 21st Street - 9th Floor
Long Island City, NY 11101
congestion_mitigation_commission{at}dot.state.ny.us
Phone 212 383-7234
Fax: 718 482-6686

"This is going to be interesting," Straphangers Campaign Senior Staff Attorney Gene Russianoff said as he waited for the start of yesterday's inaugural Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meeting. "Usually with these things, the fix is in before you start but I really don't know what's going to happen."

Commission chairman Marc Shaw, a former Bloomberg Administration deputy mayor, opened up the meeting saying, "I'd like the Commission to operate as informally as possible." It was a not-so-subtle suggestion that the presence of the press and public weren't necessarily going to help the 17-member group come to a deal any more quickly, and that the real discussion would be taking place offline. When someone in the crowd complained that Shaw's microphone wasn't working and no one could hear what he was saying, Shaw joked, "Good."

After a unanimous vote ratifying him as chairman, Shaw took a few minutes to describe the context in which they'd be working. "The most important thing is the economic backdrop," Shaw said. "We'll be talking about slower economic growth in the next 12 to 18 months. As we look for ways to provide resources for the MTA in its capital plan, we're not going to have any new state or city resources."

As for the city's gridlock, Shaw said, "At end of the day there are only two ways to deal with traffic congestion in this town. One way is to have less economic activity take place in midtown and downtown, a choice that no one wants. The only other way to deal with congestion is to find ways to improve mass transit."

Noting that the Commission would need "a fairly aggressive work plan" in order to come up with an agreed upon plan within the four month time frame laid out in the deal made with the US Department of Transportation, Shaw offered a set of criteria by which various traffic reduction proposals might be measured consistently. The criteria were:

• Reduction of vehicle miles traveled
• Peripheral parking and traffic impacts to neighborhoods
• Privacy issues
• Air quality and environmental concerns.
• Impact on various economic classes
• Revenues for mass transit
• Cost of implementation
• Best practices
• Overall economic impact of any proposal

Following Shaw's introduction, Rohit Aggarwala, City Hall's Long Term Planning and Sustainability Director presented Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for a three year congestion pricing pilot program and some of the thinking and data behind it (see Aggarwala's presentation here)

Aggarwala noted that about 30 percent of travelers into Manhattan's Central Business District go by car or truck and that despite significant improvements in subway and bus service, that "modal share" hasn't changed since 1975. That "leads us to believe that transit improvements and incentives alone would be insufficient" to reduce traffic congestion," Aggarwala said.

A slide from Rohit Aggarwala's presentation to the Commission.

Aggarwala also noted that "only a small percentage of New York City residents," 4.6 percent, "drive in every day as their main way to get to work." Even among Staten Island residents, the percentage of commuters regularly driving in to the CBD doesn't reach 10 percent. If you looked at what causes traffic, one of Aggarwala's slides showed that 59.5 percent of the vehicles in Manhattan's CBD are private autos. About 30 percent are taxis and for-hire cars.

At the end of Aggarwala's presentation, Shaw opened up the floor for questions, most of which came from two of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's three appointees, Northern Manhattan Assembly member Denny Farrell and Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky.

"Is it a tax or is it to lower the amount of vehicles coming in?" Farrell asked.

"The reason why congestion pricing is such a compelling tool," Aggarwala said, "is because it's the kind of solution that does all these things at once. It raises money, it gets people out of their cars, it cleans the air…"

Farrell, who was first elected to the Assembly in 1974, around the time that Aggarwala was likely starting nursery school, raised his voice, "You didn't answer the question."

Northern Manhattan Assembly member Herman "Denny" Farrell

They went back and forth a bit on traffic modeling and mode share numbers until Farrell zeroed in what on what seemed to be his issue. "Pricing will not effect anyone coming from New Jersey," Farrell said. "I live right next to the George Washington Bridge. Come visit us on a Friday afternoon. Starting about 100th Street traffic is jammed, stopped dead. Nothing you're doing here will effect that."

Brodksy was next.

"I don't think this is the time to argue," he said. "My problem is that I don't understand what you've proposed."

Unlike the Commission's other two Assembly members, who seemed most passionately concerned with issues immediate to their own districts, Brodsky posed broader questions about the Commission's mandate, how traffic reduction and air quality claims were being measured, and revenue.

In what may very well be the set up for a legal challenge to push for an Environmental Impact Study, Brodsky repeatedly pressed the point that the Commission didn't have enough information to approve the Mayor's congestion pricing pilot program.

"What are you asking us to consider?" he asked Aggarwala. "What are we statutorily bound to consider? How do you measure the health and air quality impacts in your plan? How do we know the air quality impacts of this plan on Jackson Heights, Queens?"

Aggarwala took a stab at answering some of his questions but Brodsky still felt he didn't have the information he needed.

"I don't get it," he said.

"We have four months to use this Commission for this very purpose," Shaw replied.

Other Commissioners -- you can find their bios here -- laid some of their issues on the table as well.

Russianoff said he wanted more guidance from the city on residential parking permits and how the proposed MTA toll and fare hikes might impact the traffic reduction and mode shift projections made in the Mayor's plan.

Tom Egan wanted to know why there were no new bus routes proposed for Southeastern Queens.

Ed Ott wondered what would happen to the city's mass transit system if congestion pricing revenue didn't materialize.

Richard Bivone asked whether the MTA could handle the additional riders.

Elizabeth Yeampierre wanted more specific information about how the Mayor's plan would improve the environmental and health problems in Bronx and Brooklyn neighborhoods that "are host to the city's highway infrastructure and environmental burdens."

And with arms crossed, head cocked and a tone of skepticism in her voice, Assembly member Vivian Cook made it clear that "that Queens County and Long Island City aren't going to become a parking lot for the region."

The meeting closed with Brodsky peppering Sander and DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, also a Commissioner, with revenue-related questions. Brodsky wanted clarity on whether congestion pricing revenues would be used to pay for MTA capital projects or MTA operating expenses. He also asserted that New York City's agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation doesn't "contain any commitment of funds" and "gives the feds the right to give us nothing even if we pass congestion pricing."

Sander, hinting that the public forum might not be the ideal "context" for he and Brodsky to hash out some of these issues, said, "We do not anticipate use of any congestion pricing funds for operating assistance. Zero. Our position is that if we were to approve congestion pricing, that funds should be used for our capital program." Specifically, Sander said, if he had his "druthers," congestion pricing revenues would go towards building the Second Avenue subway, updating the Authority's 19th century signal system, improving transit service in the outer boroughs and a variety of other projects.

As for the $354.5 million commitment from the federal government, Sadik-Khan told Brodsky, "We do have a commitment from the US DOT and from DOT Secretary Mary Peters and I'd be happy to sit with you and clarify that."

Shaw said that the Commission will be meeting approximately once a month between now and February and will host a number of public hearings along the way as well.