Former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who served for eight years in George W. Bush's DOT, sat down with Streetsblog Capitol Hill this week to urge that Congress add a dedicated funding stream of $1 billion each year for transportation technology to the next long-term infrastructure bill.

Since leaving office, Peters has transitioned to private consulting work in her home state of Arizona and joined the board of directors at Aldis, a Tennessee-based traffic management company.

Alids' GridSmart program, a panoramic camera that captures vehicles and pedestrians at intersections and helps "smartly" synchronize traffic signals accordingly (see the above video), would stand to gain if Congress heeds Peters' advice and directly funds transportation technology.

Peters acknowledged that her proposal for the next infrastructure bill would help Aldis, but she described the billion-dollar dedicated funding as an opportunity for states and cities to choose their own high-tech solutions for traffic management. "This is a great application," Peters said of the GridSmart, "but there are others out there."

The House's original version of the 2005 transportation bill, which was recently extended for another month amid political wrangling, included $3 billion over five years for technological upgrades, also known as "intelligent transportation." But that money was removed from the legislation during conference talks with the Senate, Peters noted, leaving states without federal help with modernizing their congestion management.

The annual $1 billion fund Peters is backing would be distributed to states by formula, but state DOTs would have to report back to Washington on how effectively their technological investments were meeting specific performance targets. (For more on Peters' support of a federal role in setting transportation standards, see Part I of the Streetsblog interview.)

What standards does Peters think should be used to judge state DOTs' technological upgrades? Decreased delay time, but also safety for drivers as well as pedestrians. On that issue, the GridSmart program would also get a leg up -- Aldis' cameras have the ability not just to lengthen green lights for a row of trucks, but also to extend red lights so a large volume of pedestrians could cross a street without being trapped on the sidewalk.

Peters said she could also see states being asked to use their transportation technology money on better road pricing systems, such as the traffic management cameras that were installed as part of Miami's federally funded I-95 HOT lanes.

The House's current draft of a new long-term infrastructure bill does not include dedicated money for transport technology, but "intelligent transportation" is not without its congressional allies; Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) has founded a caucus that focuses on the issue. And the likely delay in taking up the next long-term bill could end up giving Peters and Aldis more time to press their case.

Will Chicago get a second chance at federal funds for better bus service? Photo: celikins/Flickr

Back in April, the feds withdrew a $354 million grant to New York City because Albany failed to pass congestion pricing. Chicago would have received $153 million of that for BRT pilot routes, but as Crain's reports, the city failed to hold up its end of the bargain:

The administration this week quietly pulled back a pending ordinance that would have hiked fees and taxes for off-street parking in garages and on surface lots downtown by as much as $8 a day. The measure was supposed to be the stick for a big carrot: a $153-million federal grant announced last spring to begin a pilot express transportation system known as bus rapid transit.

But the measure, which arrived in the wake of large hikes in parking-meter fees, drew strong opposition from business groups. And even if the mayor had put down the opposition, the ordinance was not approved by the Dec. 31 deadline mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

With only a few days left in the Bush era, U.S. DOT Secretary Mary Peters, who initiated the Urban Partnership Agreement to spur initiatives like this, has indicated that she won't cut Chicago any slack. Which means this story could turn into an early test for incoming secretary Ray LaHood. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley still hopes to get the new parking policy through City Council, and if LaHood continues the urban partnership program, the city may not lose the federal funding after all.

Here's a disturbing story from the Associated Press on gas shortages in Asheville, North Carolina, where hot-tempered drivers are waiting in long lines to fill up, only to find in some cases that the pumps are tapped. Asks one flustered motorist:

"What's wrong with our government? Why are they letting this happen to us?"

Maybe the saddest thing about that comment is that, months into the current gas price spike and years after Hurricane Katrina caused similar supply interruptions, Washington still isn't talking about how to wean Americans off the stuff. As Atlantans Twitter to find the nearest line and Tennesseans take to the Internet with profanity-laced rants, Senate Republicans this week blocked a spending package that would have boosted funding for overburdened transit systems, while the best US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters can do is a paltry $30 million federal allocation to be split among 15 commuter rail projects.

Video: WorldWide News Today/YouTube

Gasoline tax revenue is falling so fast that the federal government may not be able to meet its commitments to states for road projects already under way, the secretary of transportation said Monday.

The secretary, Mary E. Peters, said the short-term solution would be for the Highway Trust Fund’s highway account to borrow money from the fund’s mass transit account, a step that would balance the accounts as highway travel declines and use of mass transit increases.

Meanwhile, America's historically underfunded transit systems are also struggling with rising fuel prices and record demand. No word yet on how taking money away from transit to pay for highways fits in to George W. Bush's plan to end America's oil addiction but maybe time for Americans to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves what kind of nation do we want to be?

On Tuesday, U.S. DOT unveiled "Fast Lane," a blog-type website supposedly authored by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. Whoever came up with the name, however, didn't do much to elevate the perception of Peters among transit and bike advocates, with whom she has a mixed record at best. Maybe it's too much to ask for a blog called "On Track" or "Bike Lane," but to acknowledge only drivers gets this PR effort off on the wrong foot. May we suggest re-branding and -- taking a page from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign -- going with a mode-neutral name based on mobility?

The first few posts hype some laudable moves on the feds' part, like funding Chicago's BRT lines and parking reforms (with what could have been New York's money). Peters also announced DOT's intention to move forward on a transit link between northern Virginia and Dulles Airport, which the agency had previously hesitated to fund (though the reversal may boil down to throwing some swing voters a bone during an election year).

While it's hard to take any PR from the administration at face value, to its credit, comments are enabled on the blog, and the moderators aren't screening out every bike-friendly suggestion that comes up.

There are also a few unintentionally humorous touches, like the conceit that mayors, governors, and the secretary herself are actually writing these posts. A Flickr-style photo pool is full of un-captioned images, typically featuring Peters or some unnamed official inspecting/pointing at/riding on an unidentified piece of gear. This raises the question: When will we be able to friend the Secretary of Transportation on Facebook?

Photo: Fast Lane

Remember the $354.5 million federal grant that New York City was going to get to implement congestion pricing before the deal collapsed in Albany? US DOT Secretary Mary Peters announced today that Chicago will receive $153 million of New York City's money for the creation of a new bus rapid transit network, the installation of variable rate parking meters and a few other items.

City Room has the story and the Chicago Tribune also reports:

Federal and city officials announced today an ambitious plan to get more commuters out of their cars by freeing CTA buses from traffic congestion and speeding the ride to and from work in Chicago.

Lanes dedicated to buses-only will be created on four major city corridors that were not immediately identified. One could be Lake Shore Drive.

In addition, buses will make fewer stops-four to five blocks apart. Kiosks will be installed at the bus stops to enable passengers to pre-pay their fares and board quickly once the bus arrives.

Technology will be added to some traffic signals to extend green lights for buses running behind schedule, much like the signal-priority equipment that gives the green to ambulances and fire trucks, officials said. Pace has experimented with the technology on Harlem Avenue in the suburbs.

The plan also calls for new parking meters downtown that would charge more during rush-hour to discourage people from driving there.

Another component of the plan involves creating fees for on-street truck-loading zones downtown.

Last week Peters also announced that Los Angeles would receive $213 million for new HOT lanes. 

The article tells how this troika came up with the plan to seed pricing in five pilot cities, and delves into their ulterior motives:

For Gribbin, Duvall and Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, the goal is not just to combat congestion but to upend the traditional way transportation projects are funded in this country. They believe that tolls paid by motorists, not tax dollars, should be used to construct and maintain roads.

They and other political appointees have spent the latter part of President Bush's two terms laboring behind the scenes to shrink the federal role in road-building and public transportation.

On the face of it, the story meshes with some of the anti-pricing arguments New Yorkers have been hearing, especially from Representative Anthony Weiner, who has called pricing a conservative ploy to de-fund federal support for transit projects. That position has drawn ridicule from Mayor Bloomberg as he stumps for pricing, captured in the Observer's account of yesterday's Crain's New York Business Breakfast Forum:

“I have nothing against any one congressman [but] that is one of the stupider things I’ve ever heard said. Forget the fact that he’s one of the congressmen who’s supposed to get the money for us. The Democrats control -- his party controls Congress -- what’s he talking about? Number two, by that argument, we should cut all the taxes, which some people would like, and then just sit here and wait to give us all the money back.

The Post story has already provided fodder for press accounts favorable to Weiner, like this Daily Politics post, which quotes the Queens congressman:

"I'm interested in solutions, not name calling. I respect the Mayor, but I don't think the evidence supports trusting President Bush and his cabinet here. In Washington the Administration tries to cut money to roads and to cut mass transit, and then they come to New York City and say they won't. I'm concerned that New Yorkers will get the short end of the stick." 

On close examination, however, the Post article omits several details that would have led to a different conclusion, namely: There is no inherent connection between pricing and reduced funding for transit.

To begin with, the article fails to note that pricing enjoys widespread support from transportation policy experts who, unlike the officials it profiles, believe pedestrians, bikes, and transit should have priority over cars. In New York, we've also seen green groups like the League of Conservation Voters and Environmental Defense rally to support pricing. And the two cities to initiate pricing most recently -- Stockholm and "Red Ken" Livingstone's London -- did so under left-leaning leadership.

Clearly, there are (at least) two ways to tell the story of congestion pricing: one is to say traffic will be mitigated by allocating scarce road space more efficiently; the other narrative is about reclaiming city streets from the private auto, making motorists pay the cost of their own pollution while funding alternatives that make it easier for people to get around without a car.

These two ways of viewing pricing are not mutually exclusive. However, the Post story shows how the Bush administration has conflated the first narrative with an anti-transit agenda, and with their belief in privatizing roads. But the article neglects what's been going on in New York. Here, the advocates pushing pricing forward subscribe mostly to the second view, and the City and the Traffic Mitigation Commission have proposed using the revenue to support mass transit and livable streets.

Yes, local pricing advocates want the $354 million that Peters has been dangling in front of New York. But so what? In ten months she'll be gone, and so will Gribbin and Duvall and their agenda. The real meat of transportation policy for the next five years, the highway re-authorization bill, will be decided after they leave. Congestion pricing could play a significant part in that bill, and it could go hand in hand with more money for bikes and transit if the story gets told right.

Rather than letting the Bush administration frame the issue, our elected leadership -- especially people like Anthony Weiner and the rest of New York's congressional delegation -- needs to push the Livable Streets narrative of congestion pricing down in DC. Who has the vision to step out in front of this issue and define it as truly progressive transportation policy? Elected officials from Detroit and Phoenix certainly aren't going to do it.

It's now or never for congestion pricing, the MTA, and maybe even the city itself, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning.

Speaking before a sold-out crowd at the Battery Park City Ritz-Carlton, Bloomberg and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters were the guests of honor at today's Crain's New York Business Breakfast Forum, where the mayor painted a bleak picture for a city transit system without congestion revenues and the $354 million in federal funds that hinge on the adoption of a pricing plan by March 31.

"Refusing those funds is basically saying that there will be next to no MTA capital projects in our immediate future," said Bloomberg. "It's just the truth of the matter. There is no money short of this."

Bloomberg said there are "only four significant issues" left to address in the current pricing plan. As to doubts that revenues will be dedicated to transit, the mayor implied there would be no alternative, other than "a steep increase in fares." The MTA has borrowed all that is "feasible," he said, noting that even with pricing funds, there is a $9 billion gap in the agency's capital plan.

Residential parking zones will guard against park-and-ride problems, Bloomberg said. Responding to criticism of a toll credit for New Jersey car commuters, the mayor cited estimates that indicate the new $8 toll is already reducing peak hour traffic. "So, in a very real sense, there's already a congestion pricing fee for New Jersey drivers," he said, pointing out that the State of New York receives a 50 percent share of Port Authority tolls.

According to Bloomberg, his administration is working with lawmakers on a possible refund for low-income city commuters "that offsets what they'd pay in congestion pricing fees that are over and above the comparable cost of commuting by subway" -- a significant compromise reportedly insisted upon by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. He gave no further details.

Though he said the city needs to "make sure our governor is on board," Bloomberg bristled at the notion that recent turmoil in Albany could stall the plan, since the makeup of the legislature has not changed. "There's nothing new here," he said. "Either you're going to do it or you're not."

Asked if there was any possibility that the plan could be passed now but implemented during better economic times, as has been suggested by Comptroller William Thompson, Secretary Peters responded simply: "No." For her part, Peters said she is "optimistic" congestion pricing will pass. If not, she said, New Yorkers will have missed out on a "once in a generation" opportunity.

Playing to his business-friendly audience, Bloomberg elicited rueful chuckles when he pointed out that while New York has four earth-boring machines at work on subterranean transportation tunnels, Shanghai has 90.

"Cities that are our competitors in the global economy are making investments that will ensure their future," he said. "So must we."

"Today is Monday. There is work to be done."

So said David Paterson, who was sworn in as New York's 55th governor just after 1:00 this afternoon. Two Mondays from now, the City Council and state Legislature will need to have adopted a congestion pricing plan if the city is to receive $354 million in federal transportation funds. Opinions on whether the governor will work to make that happen still vary wildly, even among those who've talked to people close to Paterson.

Here is the Daily News, from Friday:

Incoming Gov. David Paterson may have declined to take a stand on congestion pricing Thursday - but members of his inner circle have been lobbying for the proposal.

During his first press conference since Gov. Spitzer resigned in disgrace, Paterson said he needed to delve deeper into details of the plan to charge motorists $8 to drive south of 60th St.

"Although the mayor has not directly discussed congestion pricing with him, it would seem to be a good sign that people very close to the new governor are supportive," a City Hall source said.

Former Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch and former Paterson campaign manager Luther Smith have been pitching the toll scheme as a way to fund mass transit improvements in underserved minority communities.

Smith is president of Lynch's lobbying firm, Bill Lynch Associates, which has been doing pro-pricing outreach for Communities United for Transportation Equity.

Both Lynch and Smith are advising Paterson as he makes the transition to the state's highest office.

And here is a Crain's story filed yesterday:

AS THE DEADLINE APPROACHES for legislative approval of congestion pricing, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan faces a new hurdle in the state Senate.

Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, has supported the idea, but he is making no effort to rally his conference behind it. Democrats from the boroughs outside Manhattan don't want to endorse a plan that they believe is unpopular with constituents.

"It's a very heavy lift, and Malcolm recognizes that it's a problem for his members," one senator says. "He's not pressuring us."

Moreover, Mr. Bloomberg has not delivered transit upgrades that senators have requested for their districts. Instead, the legislator says, "I've gotten the same talking points over and over."

The back-and-forth continues from last week, when Paterson said his incoming admin was "taking a look" at pricing. It's the only public statement he's made so far on the subject.

On Wednesday Crain's will host a breakfast forum at the Battery Park Ritz-Carlton featuring Mayor Bloomberg and federal Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. The event is sold out.

Photo: Mary Altaffer/Associated Press via New York Times

We didn't do it.

A web site demanding that US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters lose her post -- www.firemarypeters.com -- is a project of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Angry about the Bush administration's plan to allow trucks from Mexico across the border, the labor org launched the "Fire Mary Peters" campaign last month.

Though Peters took heat from Streetsbloggers last year for claiming that bikes "are not transportation," her department also chose New York as one of five cities to share in a $1.1 billion earmark for congestion pricing projects.

The beginning of 2008 has seen a flurry of debate -- at least in wonkish circles -- over federal transportation spending. In January, the bi-partisan Surface Transportation Commission released a report two years in the making, "Transportation for Tomorrow," which was promptly badmouthed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters for a gas tax hike proposal and partially redacted by the Bush administration to remove a section advocating for public transportation. Just last week the White House proposed paying federal highway obligations by "borrowing" from a fund set aside for transit. With the federal highway bill up for re-authorization next year, huge sums of money are on the line, not to mention the direction of US transportation policy.

One of the new phrases getting tossed around in these discussions is "mode-neutral" funding, which entails allocating money based on pre-determined criteria and cost-benefit analysis, instead of earmarks for roads or transit. Here is FTA Administrator James Simpson (a Bush appointee and former MTA board member), addressing the American Public Transit Association last October:

“Don’t think mode, think people.”  That’s become our motto.

I believe that such mode-neutral thinking is central to a new paradigm in transportation.  I believe that we must stop thinking in terms of mode--no more highways versus transit or bus versus rail. Instead, we MUST think in terms of people and focus on our customers.

And here is syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, endorsing the transportation commission's report:

...the commission faced the necessity of a dramatic rise in the federal gas tax, to 40 cents a gallon, indexed to inflation. And it sought accountability by combining today’s 108 federal transportation funding lines (for transit, highways, railroads, etc.) into 10 goal-oriented programs such as “Congestion Relief,” “Energy Security” and “Saving Lives.” The system would be performance-driven, outcome-based, mode-neutral -- a far call from today’s morass of earmarked transportation projects and billions flowing to states for still more highways.

So would mode-neutral transportation funding benefit a livable streets agenda? The short answer: "It depends."

The long answer goes back to the end of 2006, when mode-neutral funding first gained currency. It was a guiding principle of the Eddington Report, an exhaustive study of the UK transportation network released that December. The report got attention for proposing a national road pricing mechanism, but several core recommendations were less audacious, calling for maintenance and incremental improvements instead of big capital projects.

"'Fix it first' comes out first," said transportation expert David Burwell, who answered my questions about mode-neutral funding in a phone interview last week.

That means expensive projects like Moynihan Station would probably have fewer federal dollars to count on, but less capital-intensive projects, like Bus Rapid Transit, may stand to gain. And a mode-neutral approach bodes poorly, as Peirce suggests, for costly road-widening projects that have no long-term impact on congestion.

In the end, much depends on the criteria used to evaluate performance. Hypothetically, a mode-neutral transportation agenda could set goals of reducing VMT and emissions, then dispense money to the most cost-effective means of achieving those outcomes.

For now, says Burwell, all the talk of mode-neutral funding in the US is moot, because "no one cares about performance; they care about earmarks."

"We don't collect the data that would allow us to have an effective cost-benefit analysis," he added. "The only performance measure that US DOT asks state DOTs is, 'Did you spend the money?'"

Photo: Marionzetta / Flickr

As many Streetsblog readers no doubt recall, in August Peters made what looked like an attempt to score political points in the wake of the Minnesota bridge collapse by stating that Congress had been spending too much on frivolities such as museums, lighthouses, and bike routes, rather than transportation infrastructure.

Said Peters, during an interview on PBS:

Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails.

About.com bike blogger David Fiedler posted the response he (and presumably others) received when he contacted Peters following that interview, in which she says her remarks "were part of a much larger critique of the processes by which investment decisions are increasingly being made at the Federal level."

"Too often," Peters wrote, "political influence and power are guiding transportation spending priorities, instead of merit, competition, data, and analysis." No argument there -- and it must be noted that this controversy erupted just days after Peters pledged $354 million toward congestion pricing in NYC.

Peters also says in her letter that "bicyclists and pedestrians are legitimate and welcome users of our Nation's transportation system," and "a healthy part of the solution to congestion in our urban areas."

Fiedler remains unimpressed.

[T]hat statement is going to ring hollow until funding specifically for bicycle infrastructure is more than just a tiny fraction of the nation's massive transportation budget. I still think it is baloney that Peters pointed to all the wasteful spending on bike trails as the reason an interstate bridge fell down. Give me a break.

Some excerpts:

• You know, I think Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 percent of the gas tax money that they pay today actually goes into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes in many, many other areas.
• There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
• Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails.

PBS has the full transcript, along with video of the interview.

ADDENDUM: A tipster sends along this link to a prescient STPP report from 2003, debunking the myth that bridges are in ill repair because of spending in "other areas":

Why has bridge safety declined in some states while it improves in others? Although the bridge program is designed to put federal dollars where they're most needed, many states fail to take full advantage of the funding available to them. Overall, the states have spent only 73% of the bridge funding allocated by Congress over the last decade ...

Photo: FHWA

The secretary of transportation announced this morning that the federal government will provide New York City with $354 million to implement congestion pricing in New York City, if the State Legislature acts by March 2008 to put in effect Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's proposal for charging traffic fees in Manhattan.

The announcement is a major step forward for Mayor Bloomberg's plan, but it does not guarantee that the congestion fees will pass muster with Albany and the City Council. Ms. Peters singled out the mayor for praise at a 10 a.m. news conference in Washington:

The average New York commuter now spends 49 hours stuck in traffic every year, up from 18 hours in 1982. While some may be content to accept growing gridlock as a way of life, Mayor Bloomberg is not going to let traffic rob the Big Apple. He has stepped forward with a plan as brass and bold as New York City itself. New Yorkers must understand that we must stop relying on yesterday's ideas to fight today's traffic jams.

As Ms. Peters noted, the congestion pricing proposal still faces several hurdles. The State Legislature has created a 17-member commission to evaluate, by March 2008, a host of traffic mitigation measures, including congestion pricing, and come up with recommendations. That commission must give assent to the mayor's plan - and the State Legislature and the City Council must act as well - before the proposal can go forward.

To receive the $354 million, Ms. Peters said, the commission must agree to a traffic plan that meets the "same performance goals" as Mayor Bloomberg's plan. Ms. Peters made it clear that she believed congestion pricing was an essential element of that plan, saying "it would be difficult for them to meet those performance objectives" if the commission arrives at a plan that is "substantially different" from the mayor's.

Ms. Peters announced the completion of an eight-month process to dole out more than $1 billion in federal traffic-mitigation grants. New York City was one of 26 communities around the country that submitted the proposals for Urban Partnership Agreements, part of a National Strategy to Reduce Congestion. Five communities were chosen. Ms. Peters said she would announce the four other recipients of the money later today.

Ms. Peters said that Mayor Bloomberg's proposal differed from any previous proposals for curbing traffic because "the emphasis is on results." She added:

Unlike building new roads, this plan can be implemented quickly and will have almost an immediate impact on traffic. That's something our current approach has failed to deliver. It seems the only thing growing faster than transportation spending - which has doubled since 1991 - is traffic congestion along our cities and highways. Mayor Bloomberg is that rare politician willing to take on taboo topics like congestion pricing, because he knows that commuters need solutions that work, not promises that do not.

Seated alongside ten colleagues in the auditorium of the New York City Bar building in Midtown, Herman "Denny" Farrell, Jr. (D-New York), set the tone right away. In opening remarks, Farrell complained that legislators had been chastized in the media for not acting on PlaNYC before "a single public hearing" could be held, and pledged that the hearings would uncover the facts -- and "just the facts" -- about congestion pricing.

"Clearly, something must be done" about congestion, Farrell said. "However, we must be sure that the cure is not worse than the disease."

Farrell disagreed with Bloomberg over whether a possible $500 million federal grant for city transportation projects hinged on the approval of congestion pricing by state lawmakers, insisting that other initiatives could attract the funds. Bloomberg told Assembly members that almost half of the $500 million would cover pricing start-up costs, while the remaining funds would be invested in immediate transit improvements in the run-up to implementation. The mayor, having met with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters yesterday, said the feds will steer the half-billion dollars to another city if congestion pricing doesn't clear the legislature.

Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff said pricing is expected to net $380 million in revenues in its first year, all of which would be spent on further transit upgrades. Farrell was unimpressed, wondering what effect a congestion charge would have on "working folks," and predicting that cars kept off Midtown streets by pricing would be replaced by trucks. When Doctoroff reminded Farrell that large commercial trucks would be subject to a $21 fee, Farrell was dismissive: "It's a write-off, though."

At times Farrell seemed to be arguing for the sake of arguing. In discussing the E-ZPass technology that would be used for billing and collections, the Assembly member declared "I don't give E-ZPass my money." When Bloomberg and company explained that congestion charges could be paid online, by phone and at retail locations throughout the city, Farrell responded with "I don't have a computer."

A bit more thoughtful but no less confrontational, Assembly Member Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) dominated the questioners' time, first thanking Mayor Bloomberg for bringing big ideas to the table, then congratulating him on "stampeding the political class." As if it wasn't clear where he stood from the outset, Brodsky then referred to congestion pricing as "a 600 million dollar tax increase."

Brodsky said he conceded the "wider benefit" of pricing, but asked why the same effect couldn't be achieved by new taxes on wealthy New Yorkers. When Bloomberg replied that the point of congestion pricing is to discourage driving by making it more expensive, Brodsky likened it to "gentrifying the roads."

Brodsky and others spent a good bit of the morning dwelling on the erosion of civil liberties they fear would be inherent in the photographing of license plates for billing purposes, with Brodsky himself going so far as to condemn traffic cameras as "Un-American."

"I don't even like your red light cameras," he said.

Instead of pricing, Brodsky has presented the city with a proposal involving congestion rationing -- which limits certain cars on certain days based on plate numbers or other identifiers (and is presumably enforced without the use of cameras). But such a plan, Doctoroff pointed out, would do nothing to raise much needed transit funds.

"I'm prepared to vote for a tax increase for mass transit," Brodsky vowed -- indicating, in so many words, that Bloomberg has shamed the Assembly into action of some sort.

Not all legislators were as churlish. Robert Sweeney (D-Lindenhurst) told the mayor he is "glad [Bloomberg] did not adopt a more timid approach" to the city's environmental ills. And James Brennan, (D-Brooklyn) assured Bloomberg is he "generally sympathetic" to the pricing plan. (Even so, Brennan eventually asked how it could be "fair" to force "mom" to pay for ferrying the kids across town for a play date.)

Other queries followed regarding the discredited edge effect, "serious" penalties for late payment, and the "extremely problematical" ramifications for those who aren't among the Manhattan "elite." On many of these points, Bloomberg and staffers -- Doctoroff, PlaNYC Director Rohit Aggarwala, and new DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller -- indicated a willingness to provide further clarification and an openness to negotiation. The key, Bloomberg said in his concluding remarks, is to act now.

And if we don't, "Shame on us."

Mr. Spitzer said at a news conference this morning, "There will always be some congestion and the good news is there is economic growth and there's vitality in the city." The goal, he said, is to mitigate the effects of congestion. The governor appeared swayed by the mayor's arguments that the plan would help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority: "I would just reinforce the mayor's point about the enormity of the capital investments that will be made in the mass transportation system over the next decade. These are decade-long investments, but they will be enormous."

Dire warnings about the authority's precarious finances have come at a politically convenient time for the mayor, who since April has been waging an uphill battle to persuade Albany of the merits of his congestion pricing proposal. The mayor said yesterday that the fees from charging drivers in Manhattan's most heavily trafficked areas would be a boon for public transit and could potentially help delay, or minimize the impact of, a fare increase.

That the Mayor is using the MTA fiscal crisis to push congestion pricing should not be a surprise to Streetsblog readers.

So far it looks like a big victory for the mayor - and another step in a remarkable turnaround for the Bloomberg administration. Fresh after his re-election victory in 2005, The Times reported that Mr. Bloomberg would use his political capital to advance bold ideas like congestion pricing. The administration quickly backed off, with Edward Skyler, its top spokesman, insisting that congestion pricing was not on the mayor's second-term agenda.

A "remarkable turnaround?" We'll second that.

More coverage here at NY1.

Standing with Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Gov.
Eliot Spitzer this morning said he is "in favor of embracing a congestion pricing model" at a press conference where U.S.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters announced New York is one of nine semi-finalist cities competing for $1.1 billion worth of federal funding to help implement traffic-curbing plans.

Spitzer called congestion pricing "a necessary investment for New York City" and said the state will work with the city to fine-tune its application for federal funds.

"This is not really a question of whether, it's a question of when and a question of doing it properly," said the governor, who also stressed that issues of implementation and the effect congestion pricing would have on the overall transportation system still remain to be worked out.

Peters, who said she personally experienced the city's traffic problem when she hit a jam on the FDR on her way to the governor's Manhattan office, said the federal government aims to pick five finalist cities by early August and will be seeking assurances from local officials that their respective plans can be implemented quickly.

The city could receive some $400 million, although Spitzer said they're aiming for $500 million. The cash would be used to implement a pilot plan, Bloomberg said, adding: "People want specificity; But until we try it, we're not going to exactly know. We are smart enough and flexible enough to try things and constantly improve them."

This is a one-shot deal - if the deadlines aren't met, the funding won't be available later, said Peters. She called Bloomberg's plan "bold, brave and long overdue," adding: "This plan will keep the city that never sleeps from becoming the city that never moves."

The Legislature needs to sign off on congestion pricing. Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has signaled his support. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has been more reticent. Bloomberg is scheduled to testify at an Assembly hearing on the topic tomorrow in Manhattan.

Peters was supposed to travel to Albany this afternoon to meet with both Bruno and Silver, but called off her trip due to what was billed as a last-minute scheduling conflict.

[T]he centerpiece of the traffic plan involves an initiative that some critics say amounts to a tax, a plan depicted by administration officials as "congestion pricing." The administration will award $130 million in grants starting this spring to help cities and states build electronic toll systems that would charge drivers fees for traveling in and out of big cities during peak traffic times. The money also could go to other congestion strategies such as expanded telecommuting, but administration officials make it clear they think congestion pricing is the most powerful tool they have. The White House will seek an additional $175 million for congestion initiatives in next year's budget.

Beyond automobile traffic, the administration will also introduce legislation soon that could seek to impose a form of "congestion pricing" on airline travel, likely through user fees on airlines. The idea is to spread flights more evenly.

In a press release, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said that he applauded the administration's  traffic initiative and that New York should be aggressive in pursuing a share of the grant money. "I can't believe I'm saying these words," said Stringer in the release, "but I applaud the Bush Administration for their forward thinking on the issue of congestion and thank them for their willingness to work with local governments to address their unique problems."