Streetsblog New York City

We're putting in some calls and getting some initial reactions to the State Assembly's failure to bring New York City's congestion pricing plan to a vote today.

Michael O'Loughlin at the Campaign for New York's Future said:

Congestion pricing is dead. Long live congestion pricing.

The Assembly still has to come up with a plan to deal with a $17 billion transit deficit in a $29 billion capital plan. As Gene Russianoff at the Straphangers Campaign said, 'That's more hole than plan.'

The fundamental facts remain the same. The traffic problem and air pollution problems are real. The need for better transit is real. Two-thirds of New Yorkers support congestion pricing if the funds are used for transit. The success of congestion pricing in other cities is real. The reality is that we have to come up with a plan to solve our traffic and transit crisis, if not today then tomorrow.

Now, the legislature has to confront the MTA capital plan. They have to come up with billions and billions of dollars from somewhere.

It doesn't end here. The issue is engaged and it's not going away. But this is a bad day for 7.5 million transit riders, that's for sure.

Noah Budnick at Transportation Alternatives said:

Azi Paybarah at the Politicker shot this video of Queens City Council Member David Weprin's anti-pricing rally yesterday. Sharing the podium with Weprin is Walter McCaffrey of Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free. Can you count the distortions relayed in this nine minute reel?

After the jump, Azi gets a response from Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future.

David Paterson is going to do right by his old State Senate district after all. New York's new governor settled any doubts about his position on congestion pricing this afternoon, introducing a bill that follows the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. The Daily Politics has the scoop:

"Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns of the residents of New York City and its suburbs: The need to reduce congestion on our streets and roads, and thereby reduce pollution, and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvement," Paterson said.

Paterson also said that by introducing the bill, the City Council and the Legislature will be able to "examine the details" and "make an informed judgment" going forward.

It has yet to be determined if the Paterson bill differs at all from the bill that surfaced in Albany earlier this week. However, highlights of the legislation described in the governor's statement match the contents of the earlier bill. The full statement, as well as press releases from Mayor Bloomberg and pro-pricing groups, after the jump.

Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future leads the congestion pricing rally on the capitol steps.

Streetsblog's Brad Aaron files this report from Albany.

A contingent of about 80 New Yorkers is in Albany today to advocate for congestion pricing. Following a brief rally on the capitol steps this morning, led by the Campaign for New York's Future, the crowd broke off into small groups for a day of sit-downs with individual lawmakers.

I shadowed a group assigned to Senator Frank Padavan of Queens, who is against pricing, though he represents a district where just six percent of the population commutes by car to Manhattan's central business district. An amiably cantankerous fellow, Padavan started the meeting with a question: "Did the mayor send you up here?" The senator then went on for a bit about Bloomberg's helicopter and private jet before getting down to business.

"We've gotten tons of info," Padavan said. "We have reviewed it all, and I don't really have any questions."

Padavan said Residential Parking Permits would help his car-owning constituents avoid park-and-ride problems, and allowed that new express buses would be a welcome addition to his district. But he also said that, according to the MTA, there is no way to add subway capacity from 179th Street in Jamaica.

Then, when the senator was presented with specific plans for transit improvements in Queens, things got off track.

Fred Siegel of the Progressive Policy Institute moderated Sunday's debate.

On Sunday, Temple Beth Emeth in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn hosted a classic congestion pricing match-up: Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future vs. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (who, it turns out, went to shul at Beth Emeth until age ten).

The crowd of 50 could best be described as congestion pricing agnostics. An informal survey indicated that most take the subway to work (the temple is a short walk from the B and Q trains). They wanted proof that the plan would work as advertised, and based on the Q & A that followed the debate, they still need to be convinced.

The two opponents knew each other's talking points almost by heart. Each had rejoinders ready for nearly every argument and statistic thrown his way. When Brodsky claimed that his license plate rationing scheme would reduce more traffic than pricing, O'Loughlin effectively skewered the idea, using rhetoric usually reserved for the other side. "How do you tell someone who has to drive to the hospital that they can't, because they have the wrong license plate number?" he asked.

During the Q & A, the crowd asked pointed questions that probed deeper than the usual anti-pricing tirades. But as they moved the discussion away from broad pro-and-con arguments, and toward the nitty gritty specifics of the proposal now before the City Council, the Westchester Assemblyman who represents some of the wealthiest car commuters in the metropolitan region, pounced on every opportunity to raise doubts about whether congestion pricing would work as projected.

Four veterans of the congestion pricing wars went toe-to-toe at the Museum of the City of New York Wednesday night -- the last showdown before the Congestion Mitigation Commission releases its draft proposals today.

Taking the stump for pricing were Kathryn Wylde of the Partnership for NYC and Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future. Arguing against were Congressman Anthony Weiner of Queens and Walter McCaffrey of the Coalition to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free. The standing-room-only crowd of more than 120 people -- most of whom came from the Upper East Side and East Harlem, judging by the post-debate Q & A -- appeared to favor Weiner and McCaffrey by a noticeable, though not overwhelming, margin. Wylde and O'Loughlin scored their share of applause, but Weiner was the only speaker to draw vocal cheers.

Claiming that "we are buying a pig in a poke," Weiner made several arguments familiar to Streetsblog readers, adding a few rhetorical flourishes worth noting. Among his main points:

• The current plan is "not fair" because suburban drivers from LI and NJ won't pay any fee in addition to the existing tolls on the Hudson River crossings and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel.
• Commercial truck traffic in Midtown is increasing faster than car traffic, so a priority should be placed on mitigating truck congestion.
• The number of people who switch to mass transit because of congestion pricing will impose costs on the transit system that significantly outweigh the revenue pricing will generate.
• Republicans support congestion pricing because it "bolsters the idea that municipalities should pay for their own transportation enhancements," as opposed to the idea that transit improvements should be paid for from a federal pot of gas tax revenue.

Weiner built up this last point quite dramatically, painting congestion pricing as a wedge issue that has played into the hands of "Texas conservatives" by dividing people who share a concern for the environment. "There's a reason that George Bush likes this plan," he said, insisting that "there are smarter and more progressive ways to do this."

Read more...

Ahead of this afternoon's opening meeting of the 17-member Traffic Mitigation Commission, the Campaign for New York's Future sends along a press release noting two recent studies about the impact of traffic congestion on the region's health and economy:

NEW YORK, September 25, 2007 - The following may be attributed to Michael O'Loughlin, Director of the Campaign for New York's Future:

"Today's first meeting of the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission is a welcome and essential step in our collective efforts to substantially reduce traffic congestion, clean our air and improve our mass transit system.

"The need for a plan to reduce gridlock, increase mass transit options and clean our air has never been clearer or more timely. Since the members of the commission were named, two more independent reports have been released, which once again demonstrate the enormous public health and economic rationale for quick and decisive action. A study published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine found that even limited exposure to traffic-related pollution by people with heart disease during exercise can trigger a heart attack and even death [There was this editorial too]. A separate study, also in September by the Texas Transportation Institute, found that traffic congestion in New York City continues to worsen and cost drivers 384 million hours sitting in traffic in 2005 (PDF).

"Members of the Campaign for New York's Future, which includes leaders in the environmental, transportation, public health, civic, labor, business and environmental justice communities, stand ready to work with the Commission and to support the process of refining the most effective and equitable congestion reduction plan."