Add Micah Kellner's name to the MTA doomsday scorecard. Yesterday, the Upper East Side Assembly member came out in favor of increasing license and registration fees for New York drivers as a transit revenue booster.

Under the Kellner plan, which originated with the non-profit Citizens Budget Commission, motorists would pay flat fees, rather than the weight-based assessments recently proposed by city comptroller William Thompson. Kellner says the new fees would raise $550 million a year -- a little more than the income projected from tolls on the now "free" East River bridges.

On that note, Kellner's press release includes this odd passage:

"Early indications suggest that the Ravitch Commission will announce Friday that tolls on the East River bridges are the centerpiece of their recommendations. This is a proposal that has been recycled time and again in each and every fiscal crisis but has always failed to gain the necessary support to be implemented. I don’t know why they think this time will be any different, but I am hopeful that the Governor’s office will look to other ideas like this one and reinstituting the commuter tax as he constructs his Executive budget."

Could it be that the idea of imposing East River bridge tolls is "recycled time and again" because it's a proven and equitable course of action? Rather than take a stance for or against, Kellner characterizes new tolls as a non-starter -- as if, as an elected state representative, he himself is in no position to influence the issue.

Sounds all too familiar.

Now that Paterson has announced his support for the plan, a recent letter to a constituent seems to indicate that Kellner has had a change of heart. Rather than oppose the bill as introduced, Kellner says he will support it while "working to make it an even better bill."

The assemblyman's sticking points include exemptions for the disabled, whether or not they own a car; exemptions for hospital patients; surcharges for drivers who don't have E-ZPass; and "fee equity for New Jersey drivers."

The full text of the letter follows the jump.

Thank you for contacting me to let me know of your support for the congestion pricing plan as recommended by the New York State Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission on January 31, 2008.

I agree with you on this important issue, and I look forward to voting for the Governor's congestion pricing bill when it comes to the Assembly floor.

I am particularly proud that three changes that I testified in favor of made it into the draft bill that has been submitted to the State Legislature: 1. Residential parking permits; 2. Dedication of any and all congestion pricing revenue to funding capital improvements for our mass transit system, and; 3. Exemptions for people with disabilities who have DMV-issued disabled license plates.

Until the bill actually comes to a vote, I will be working to make it an even better bill - because although we need congestion pricing, there are still significant problems.

*People with Disabilities*

The bill contains an exemption for drivers with disabled plates, but does not include exemptions for people with disabilities who use accessible taxis or those people with disabilities who have SVIP placards (about 5000 New Yorkers have these placards; they are issued by the New York City Department of Transportation to people with disabilities who do not own their own cars but are frequently transported by another person, usually a family member).

*Patients at Hospitals Within the Zone*

The bill contains no exemptions for drivers traveling to and from Manhattan hospitals, several of which are located on the Upper East Side.

*Low-Income Drivers*

I believe that a tax credit for low-income drivers is appropriate and in line with New York's tradition of progressive taxation (those who can least afford to pay should not be taxed as much as those who can afford to pay more). $8 is more of a burden for a family that is low-income than for a family with a larger household income because low-income drivers are less like to have EZ-Pass. I believe it is unfair to subject these families to an additional $1 surcharge for not having EZ-Pass, on top of other related penalties.

*New Jersey** Needs To Pay Its Fair Share*

I also believe that we need to see more efforts towards fee equity for New Jersey drivers. The current plan exempts New Jersey drivers from paying the congestion pricing fee, leaving them no incentive to park their cars and take mass transit. Out of state drivers should not be getting what amounts to a discount and leaving New Yorkers to pay the lion's share of this tax.

Last year, I sent a survey to all registered voters in my district and I compiled a report from those findings. In total there were over 400 respondents. 64 percent of residents indicated their support for some form of congestion pricing, but most had reservations about some of the details of the plan, including many of the issues I discussed in this letter. My report as well as my corresponding testimony in front of the Commission on January 16, 2008 are available for you to read on my Assembly website (go to www.assembly.state.ny.us
<http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/> and click on my name, there are links to the testimony and report there).

Congestion pricing is an important and complicated undertaking, but one that I believe is incredibly important for the environmental, health, and economic future of the entire region. I'm glad to have your support on this important issue.

Thank you again for contacting me. Your opinions and feedback are important to me and I hope that you will continue to share them.

Very truly yours,

Micah Z. Kellner
Assembly Member

First, the Times quotes Governor Paterson, following his sit-down with Mayor Bloomberg yesterday afternoon:

"The mayor, I was surprised, is very compassionate about congestion pricing - he really seems to have a thing for congestion pricing," Mr. Paterson told the crush of waiting reporters. "Is that a good idea? Can it actually be implemented?" he continued, promising to review what he called Mr. Bloomberg's "very persuasive argument" with Albany leaders. "We don't have much time to make a decision, so you won't have to wait long."

Meanwhile:

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said his "members believe that they would be making the wrong vote" if they supported the congestion pricing plan. "It's not all of them," he added, "but it would be a majority."

That majority would apparently include formerly undecided Upper East Side Assembly Member Micah Kellner:

[Kellner] said Mr. Bloomberg should not count on the governor to whip up support in the Assembly. "I doubt his first act as governor is going to be trying to shove this down our throats," he said.

"The message this bill sends to the people of the city of New York is if you're poor, if you don't have access to a credit card, if you don't have access to a bank account, you should pay more," Mr. Kellner said.

Also, a tipster sends this account of a recent Queens Community Board 1 meeting, featuring an epiphany from City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr.:

Vallone said he had been pressured by the Mayor and the Speaker and the DOT Commissioner the night before at a dinner held specifically to persuade him to vote for CP. He asked for the CB to vote either for or against by a show of hands. The CB voted unanimously against it. He asked the non-CB voters in attendance to show who was in support by a show of hands. Only four (all TA members) out of approximately 30 raised their hands. He then declared he was against it.

And we have a couple of reports that a pricing poll on the web site of Queens State Senator Frank Padavan was reset after the votes began trending in favor. Seriously, now.

In related news, earlier today Bloomberg and MTA chief Elliot Sander announced a new express bus route from Throggs Neck to Lower Manhattan if "and only if" pricing is approved. The route would pick up from the end of the current BXM-9 route, offering Bronxites a one-seat ride to Battery Place.

The report is based on residents' responses to a detailed survey; 64 percent said they supported pricing (I highly recommend the survey data, which begins on page 12). Reading it feels like a quick whiff of fresh air if you're used to choking on the fumes spewed by Anthony Weiner, et al. But the sensation doesn't last long. Even though Kellner declines to dismiss pricing out of hand, he requests so many adjustments that it's fair to ask whether any real-world plan could secure his support.

The report states that "none of the five options outlined in the [TCMC] report constitutes a viable plan," then goes on to suggest alterations that would make pricing palatable. A satisfactory pricing plan, it says, would:

• Guarantee all revenue goes toward the MTA's capital budget
• Include a residential parking permit program
• Deduct tolls on MTA or Port Authority bridges from the congestion fee for New York State vehicles (out-of-state drivers would pay in full)
  
• Set the northern boundary at 72nd Street, not 86th Street (because it's a major commercial corridor) or 60th Street (which would lead to a park-and-walk effect)
  
• Add exemptions for disabled people and those making trips to the hospital
• Dump the "regressive" taxi surcharge in favor of one on "black cars" (luxury livery vehicles)

The full list is quite long. Some of the concerns have been subsequently addressed. Other objections seem like the same type of straw man argument advanced by the most ardent foes of pricing. Given a likely scenario in which the TCMC's final recommendations incorporate some but not most of these suggestions, how will Kellner and others straddling the fence cast their lot?