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:

There is still a lot that the Mayor and City Council can do without the state but it's certainly less than what we could do with that $354 million in federal money, the hundreds of millions of dollars in congestion pricing revenue and the billions in bond money that we could have done with congestion pricing.

The city doesn't need Albany's permission to undertake parking policy reform, to establish market rate curbside parking and to start reclaiming street space from automobiles and repurposing it for other uses. The city doesn't need state approval to build dedicated bus ways and protected bike lanes. Bus lane enforcement cameras do need Albany's permission but can be stand-alone legislation and may not be as heavy a lift. Creating pedestrian-only streets temporarily or permanently, Albany has no say over that. And we could establish a bike-sharing program similar to what Paris has done.

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

Azi has another video in which Weprin explains that the City Council actually doesn't support pricing, despite last week's 30-20 vote.

"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.

GOVERNOR PATERSON ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN

Governor David A. Paterson announced today that he has submitted a Governor’s program bill, that follows the recommendations of the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission report of January 31, 2008 to allow for the City Council and State Legislature to consider a bill that meets the requirements of the United States Department of Transportation Urban Partnership Agreement, which contributes $354 million in federal funds.

“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 global warming; and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvements,” Governor Paterson said. “We expect that revenue from the Congestion Pricing plan will support more than $4.5 billion in needed capital improvements for mass transit and meaningfully reduce traffic into the Central Business District of Manhattan. Before the constructive process of deliberation proceeds in both the City Council and the State Legislature, transparency requires that the public fully see what the system envisioned by the Commission will entail. While Commission Report highlighted other issues which need to be resolved, introducing this bill allows the City Council and Legislature to examine the details of the proposal and make an informed judgment on the Congestion Pricing program.”

Highlights of the bill include the following provisions recommended by the Commission:

The Congestion Pricing zone would include any roadways in Manhattan south of and inclusive of 60th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for certain public holidays.

Establish the fee as recommended by the Commission, including a surcharge on taxis and livery vehicles.

Eliminate the Manhattan long-term parking tax discount for vehicles parked within the zone.

Set out privacy protocols based on existing EZ Pass privacy controls.

Provide exemptions for authorized emergency vehicles; safety, traffic and parking control, and inspection vehicles; sanitation vehicles; school vehicles; and privately operated over-the-road buses.

Prescribe a residential parking permit program.

Lay out the environmental review process for Congestion Pricing which follows the Commission’s recommendation.

The City will oversee a monitoring program for traffic, air quality, noise, parking and other environmental impacts and release annual reports; a preliminary report will be available to the public within six months of the operation date.

The funds raised by the fee will be used, after deducting for the cost of operations, to support the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) capital plan, which was released at the end of February. Priority for funding will be for areas in need underserved by transit.

Capital expenditures will be subject to approval by the MTA’s capital program review board, and a representative of the New York City Council Speaker will have the same rights and privileges of the board members appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Senate Minority Leader and the Assembly Minority Leader.

For capital expenses derived from Congestion Pricing, the MTA will follow all legally applicable prevailing wage laws.

Any increase in parking fees by the City, as recommended by the Commission, will go into a “transit enhancement fund” to be used exclusively for additional transit, pedestrian, bicycle and parking management improvements, including ferries.

The statute passed last July that established the Traffic Mitigation Commission, requires the Mayor to request the State Legislature to consider the plan where such request has been approved by the City Council by a majority vote on a resolution. It is expected that the City Council will consider such a resolution shortly.

Press release from the Mayor's office:

STATEMENT BY MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG ON GOVERNOR PATERSON'S SUPPORT OF CONGESTION PRICING

"Today, Governor Paterson has demonstrated true leadership by submitting a  congestion pricing bill to the Legislature that will meet all of the objectives we've set – cutting traffic and reducing pollution to improve our economy and public health, and raising revenue to fund much needed projects included in the MTA Capital Plan.  The bill is a giant step forward, and its timely passage will ensure that New York gets $354 million in federal money that we've been promised.  Those funds will allow us to make immediate transit improvements.  We will work with the Governor and our partners in the State Legislature and the City Council to address outstanding issues - including reducing the impact on lower income drivers, and concerns about commuters who use Port Authority crossings contributing to the MTA Capital plan. Together, I'm certain we can pass a bill that will improve the lives of New Yorkers."

Statement from Michael O’Loughlin, Director of the Campaign for New York’s Future:

“At a time when New York urgently needs enlightened leaders to take courageous action on big challenges, Governor Paterson has today boldly demonstrated his dedication to a better future for New York.  By introducing legislation to enact congestion pricing for better transit, he is advancing a truly historic and visionary plan to reduce gridlock, improve the bus and subway system 7.5 million New Yorkers count on, and clean the air we all breathe.  This is an important step forward, especially for the millions of working-class New Yorkers who overwhelmingly rely on mass transit as their sole means of commute and daily travel.  With so much at stake, we are confident that our city and state leaders will join Governor Paterson in working together during the critical days ahead to resolve any remaining issues so that New York can receive $354 million federal dollars for immediate transit improvements and begin building the transit system we need to keep New York moving forward in the 21st century. Thank you, Governor Paterson.”

In related news, the Drum Major Institute released a statement today urging the City Council to pass pricing because it benefits New York's middle class. Here's an excerpt:

With the New York City Council poised to vote on congestion pricing on Monday, March 24th, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (“DMI”), a New York-based think tank dedicated to promoting the interests of current and aspiring middle class Americans, once again reminded the Council that “standing up for congestion pricing and standing for the interests of average, hard working New Yorkers are one and the same.”

Last year, DMI issued a report entitled “Congestion Pricing: Good Policy For New York’s Middle Class,” [PDF] which concluded congestion pricing would greatly benefit current and aspiring middle-class New Yorkers in a multitude of important ways.  After Mayor Bloomberg’s original plan was revised by the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission, of which DMI Executive Director Andrea Batista Schlesinger was a member, Ms. Schlesinger said, “I am delighted with the results of the Commission’s work.  What started out as an excellent plan has evolved into something even better.  Literally millions of average New Yorkers will benefit significantly from the adoption of congestion pricing.  It would be a tragedy for the City and State not to pass it.”

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.

"When are we going to do something about the taxicabs and the limousines?" Padavan asked, apropos of nothing. "There's nothing in the plan that addresses that."

Padavan proceeded to rail against limos double-parking as they wait for affluent Manhattanites. (He was unaware of the proposed $1 surcharge for yellow cab rides.) He then suggested a fleet of jitneys along the avenues, which would be financially self-sustaining. ("What does he think buses are?" wondered one advocate after the meeting.)

Padavan pointed out how many City Council members from Queens and Brooklyn are against pricing, concluding, "You ought to be down there talking to them."

A cyclist in the group spoke eloquently of the vision needed from Albany to move the plan through, to make New York a city of livable streets. "We'd love you to provide leadership," one advocate said.

Padavan responded that City Council members don't listen to him. In fact, he said, one of them is running against him.

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.

When someone asked how many pedestrian fatalities would be averted by pricing, for instance, it gave Brodsky a window to call the existing data into question and issue his familiar call for state environmental review.* When someone asked how much of the $8 fee would go towards enforcement and how much towards capital improvements, he played up the $125 million annual administration cost. O'Loughlin rebutted many of Brodsky's claims, but the Assemblyman tossed a lot of spaghetti against the wall and some of it stuck. He returned to one particular stat a few times -- "commuters are only 18 percent of the [congestion] load" -- implying that the congestion fee wouldn't affect the other 82 percent of trips very much.

A quick check of the facts shows that Brodsky's heavily repeated 18 percent figure is way off the mark. DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller's February 2006 study, "Necessity or Choice" (download it) reported that "personal autos comprise an estimated 60 percent of vehicles with Central Business District destinations." A year later, Schaller's intercept surveys of 1,600 Manhattan motorists showed an even higher rate -- 74 percent of drivers approaching the bridges and tunnels in the Manhattan CBD between noon and 6 pm said they were making work-related trips (download it).

Though not everyone bought into Westchester Assemblyman's obfuscations, pricing skeptics weren't exactly won over either. They remained especially reluctant to believe that a dedicated funding stream for transit would not get raided for other purposes, with or without a lock box. One woman I spoke to after the Q & A, a regular subway rider, said, "I'm very dubious now... We don't know if it's going to work. I'm not convinced that traffic and air quality would be improved." Richard Brodsky: Mission Accomplished.

* In London, congestion charging has led to a net reduction of between 40 and 70 personal injury accidents per year and significant reductions in pedestrian injuries and fatalities inside the charging zone. For more detail, download the annual TfL monitoring report and check out page 70.

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."

Weiner then outlined his own three-point plan in broad strokes, saying he would 1) charge trucks to enter Midtown during peak hours, 2) offer businesses tax incentives to remain open for late-night truck deliveries, and 3) charge private motorists, but only those from outside the five boroughs.

Wylde attacked Weiner's emphasis on trucks, pointing out that only eight percent of the vehicles in the zone below 60th Street are trucks, while 40 percent are private, single-occupancy cars. She also argued that the mayor's plan would not pit people who live in the congestion zone against people from the outer boroughs, because "Manhattan is the magnet that creates excess traffic throughout the region, and reducing traffic below 60th Street will reduce traffic throughout the region." Her repeated references to 60th Street as the northern boundary of the congestion zone may signal that the TCMC will ultimately propose shifting the boundary south from 86th Street.

Also, in response to an East Harlem resident who expressed concern that her asthma-stricken neighborhood would become even more overwhelmed by vertical parking lots, Wylde hinted that the TCMC proposals would pay "very serious attention" to the issue of parking in peripheral districts.

O'Loughlin, in his rebuttal to Weiner, argued that New York can't rely on Congress -- especially representatives from Texas -- to raise the gas tax and set aside sufficient cash to fund the city's transit system. "Just because the Bush administration is willing to give us $354 million doesn't make this a bad idea," he said. He cited support from the Drum Major Institute and the Central Labor Council as evidence of pricing's progressive bona fides, pointing out that it will be "especially good for low-income New Yorkers, who are more likely to rely on transit."

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."