Streetsblog New York City

Rohit Aggarwala (better known as Rit), the lead author of PlaNYC 2030 and director of the Mayor's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, is leaving the post he created from scratch, the Bloomberg administration announced today. Aggarwala will be stepping down in June to join his soon-to-be wife in California.

Aggarwala was tapped in 2006 by then-deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff to launch the mayor's sustainability office and formulate what became known as PlaNYC. He brought a strong background in transportation to the wide-ranging task of greening the city, having worked in the U.S. DOT during the Clinton administration. When the city's congestion pricing proposal went public in 2007, no one knew the details better or worked harder to explain them to New Yorkers than Aggarwala, whether at neighborhood meetings or public hearings in City Council chambers.

Aggarwala will leave a lasting legacy in New York, Transportation Alternatives deputy director Noah Budnick told Streetsblog. "The city doesn't improve because someone writes a policy," Budnick said in an email. "It improves because people work hard to turn words into reality. Rit is someone whose own intellect and ideals challenged New York to wholly embrace sustainability. He attracted smart ideas and committed people and engaged them in the struggle to green our metropolis. Thanks to Rit’s work, I think, as a city, we have permanently changed our perspective."

Today's announcement marks the second departure this week of a high-level administration official closely connected to sustainable transportation initiatives, following news that deputy mayor Ed Skyler is also leaving. In a press release, the mayor's office announced that a search is underway for the next planning and sustainability chief, who'll be charged with updating PlaNYC in 2011.

For a taste of the broad knowledge and exceptional patience that Aggarwala brought to the campaign for sustainable transportation policy, here's Aaron Naparstek's four-part interview with him about congestion pricing: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Finding himself with two opponents in next month's Democratic primary, the Downtown Express reports that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is spending the summer knocking on doors and chatting with editorial boards.

Apparently accepting the premise that Silver "supported" congestion pricing, the Express writes:

This week, he repeated his reason for not bringing it to the floor — the Assembly opposition was overwhelming. He said there were about 15 supporters, and if he had applied pressure, he thinks he could have gotten the number up to 20 — far short of the 76 votes needed.

He said outer borough Assemblymembers did not support the plan because "the M.T.A. lost its credibility." After so many broken promises, no one believed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority would direct the congestion pricing revenue to mass transit expansion, Silver said.

Got that? It's the chronically underfunded agency, not the lawmaking bodies lording over it, that lacks credibility.

Even so, Silver remains characteristically coy on the prospect of a pricing revival. Though he was quoted just a couple of weeks ago as ruling out the possibility, he tells the Express that pricing could perhaps come back "as part of a comprehensive plan," including a smaller zone. Once the Ravitch Commission releases its recommendations after the election, Silver says, "you’ll see this start to get straightened out."

What that means is anyone's guess. But in a recent interview with Crain's, PlaNYC architect Rohit Aggarwala maintains that pricing remains the most efficient means to meet the Bloomberg administration's goal of reducing the city’s carbon emissions by 30 percent over the next two decades:

"Any strategy will have to get people out of their cars and invest in the transit system. We settled on congestion pricing because it was the best solution to accomplish both."

This morning, the Mayor's office praised the introduction of a congestion pricing bill in the State Assembly. At the end of the statement, Bloomberg drops a hint that the bill on the table is in for some fine-tuning:

We look forward to working with the Assembly, the Senate, the Governor and the City Council to work out the unresolved issues that have been raised, including mitigating the impact on lower-income drivers and ensuring that commuters who use Port Authority crossings are doing their part.

So, some effort is still underway to tweak the current bill or otherwise address the "New Jersey issue", even though, as Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala pointed out at Monday's City Council hearing, Port Authority tunnels will generate $45 million in pricing revenue each year without changing the legislation one bit.

Read more...

Adding an $8 congestion fee to already steep parking rates will speed trips for vehicles that really need to get to the hospital.

On Monday, Rohit Aggarwala explained to City Council members that most New Yorkers would have an easier time getting to the hospital if congestion pricing takes effect. Here's another reason not to grant a congestion fee exemption for hospital trips. Assuming you follow the advice of most hospitals and don't waste time trolling for an on-street spot, driving to a major medical facility inside the proposed congestion zone is already an expensive proposition.

A four-hour stint at Beth Israel's parking facility costs $23. At NYU Medical Center's garage, the price is $24, according to BestParking.com. St. Vincent's? $25. (And no, you can't get it validated.) Bellevue is cheaper -- $12 -- but only 7-10 visitors park there each day, according to a hospital spokesman.

This price range is representative of the going rate for four hours of parking at any garage south of 60th Street, which varies from $18 to $42.

Are cost-conscious New Yorkers -- whom pricing foes claim will be hit hard by the fee -- driving to hospitals and paying these parking fees in significant numbers? Not at Bellevue. "I would say the vast majority of visitors get here by transit," said the Bellevue spokesman. "There are access vans dropping people off, a steady stream of cabs, the crosstown bus. The subway is five blocks away." All these trips will be speedier thanks to congestion pricing.

Photo: tom_hoboken/Flickr

Yesterday morning's hearing at City Hall, which garnered much press today, gave Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala the chance to clarify a number of misconceptions about congestion pricing in front of a sizable contingent of City Council members. As expected, one of the first points to come up was whether drivers from New Jersey will contribute anything to the congestion pricing revenue stream. Turns out they will.

In her opening remarks, Sadik-Khan mentioned that drivers entering Manhattan through the Lincoln and Holland tunnels will pay $45 million per year as a result of pricing. When Council member Joel Rivera asked about the logic behind the number, Sadik-Khan and Aggarwala explained that drivers who pay with cash instead of EZPass will not be eligible for the pricing offset. In other words, those drivers will pay both the Port Authority toll and the full pricing fee.

Pricing revenue would also come from drivers who use the tunnels during the Port Authority's daytime off-peak hours (9 a.m. - 4 p.m.), when the toll is $6. During those times, even drivers who take advantage of the pricing offset would still pay $2 towards the congestion fee. Aggarwala noted that two-thirds of all drivers who use the Hudson River tunnels would pay all or part of the fee.

In another exchange, Council member Melissa Mark-Viverito, a pricing supporter, asked whether the 367 buses to be added before pricing takes effect would be on new or existing lines. Sadik-Khan revealed that the buses will be spread among 33 existing lines and 12 new lines.

Mark-Viverito also wanted to know who would be able to veto any changes to the way congestion pricing revenue is spent. That power, said Sadik-Khan, would reside with the MTA Capital Program Review Board, currently a four-member panel that would grow to five members under the congestion pricing bill. (A rep appointed by the City Council speaker would join appointees of the governor, mayor, Senate majority leader, and Assembly speaker.) To change how congestion pricing revenue is spent, Aggarwala explained, the MTA would have to make a distinct proposal that would in turn have to be approved by the review board.

After the jump -- more from yesterday's hearing, including a back-and-forth with Streetsblog sparring partner Lew Fidler.

Read more...

Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala (left table) fielded questions this morning from City Council members, including Lew Fidler and Larry Seabrook.

At the first part of today's congestion pricing hearings, Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala, director of the Office for Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, fielded questions from the City Council's nine-member State and Federal Legislation Committee. Several other Council members, including Speaker Christine Quinn, were also there to ask questions, and the chamber was packed with supporters of both pro- and anti-pricing groups.

The hearing followed word this morning that State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has introduced a congestion pricing bill in Albany -- the same legislation that Governor Paterson announced on Friday, which is based on the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. Quinn began the proceedings with a short but full-throated speech in support of pricing, saying, "The benefits so far outweigh any of the negatives, the concept of inaction is simply, in my opinion, not an option. We have to seize this moment to create a sustainable revenue source for mass transit." Then, after Sadik-Khan delivered her comments (which got big applause), the Council members started popping questions.

Two Council members who have not declared a position on pricing took part in the Q&A during the time I was there to observe. One was Larry Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat who has been identified as a possible swing vote on the committee. "How are we going to say these projects won't stay on the drawing board for another 30 years?" he asked, referring to projects in the MTA capital plan targeted for the Bronx.

Sadik-Khan assured him about the lock box language in the current bill, adding, "I don't see any other way to fund the projects that your district so desperately needs without the revenues from the congestion pricing program." Seabrook repeated his position that the lock box must be ironclad, but appeared satisfied that his concerns had been addressed, wrapping up by thanking the commissioner for considering his district.

Read more...

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."

Read more...

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission wants to reduce the size of the proposed congestion pricing zone, replace cameras with higher parking fees, and possibly toll the East River bridges, according to a (subscription only) story by Erik Engquist in Crain's New York Business today.

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.

Read more...

Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky on Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal: "My problem is that I don't understand what you've proposed."

"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.

Read more...

DOT's Dani Simons and City Hall's Director of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, Rohit Aggarwala, at a joint hearing of Manhattan Community Boards 4, 5 and 6 on July 9; one of many public hearings where Bloomberg Administration officials have met with communities to discuss congestion pricing. Tonight, Brooklyn Community Board 6 hosts a similar public forum.

Here is the fourth and final installment of Streetsblog's congestion pricing Q&A with Rohit Aggarwala, New York City's Director of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. Click these links to find Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Add your questions to the comments section and we'll see if we can get Aggarwala or someone else in city government to try and answer them for you.

Aaron Naparstek: Should the mayor's congestion pricing plan be submitted to an Environmental Impact Statement process?

Rohit Aggarwala: I don't think so. And the reason is simply that an EIS would be no more valuable for the decision of whether or not to go forward with congestion pricing, and what to do to mitigate its impacts, than the analysis that we've already done, and the analysis that the commission will be doing. The problem with traffic congestion is that it is so difficult to model.

That's why we've proposed a three year pilot. The pilot itself effectively will be the Environmental Impact Statement. Keep in mind congestion pricing is very different from building something you can't tear down. We can turn this system off whenever we want. If it turns out that the environmental impacts are negative, then by all means we'll want to turn it off. We're pretty convinced that the impacts will be wildly positive, and any specific impacts that might take place that are negative are things that we would be able to adjust.

AN: What exemptions do you foresee or would you like to have or not have?

RA: The mayor's plan has a few exemptions. First of all, yellow cabs and radio cars. Second, handicapped license plates. Third, mass transit and emergency vehicles. The reason for the third is kind of obvious, As for the handicapped, although we have Access-a-Ride, if you have a disability but you can still drive, there are large parts of the transit system that don't really work that well for you.

The reason for yellow cabs and radio cars is that we believe those pretty much function as an extension of the transit system. If you take a subway into Manhattan and you're going to the far west side, you may want to take a taxi or you may want to have the option to take a taxi home at the end of the night if you work late or something like that. Similarly, because it can be difficult to find a yellow cab, particularly parts of the outer boroughs, we want to keep the ability for people to use radio cars. I don't think we want to force people out of taxi cabs. A taxi is actually very efficient use of the street. It never circles for parking and, particularly at rush hour, you have very high utilization of taxis, as we all know since it's hard to find one that's unoccupied.

Black cars and limousines would be charged in the mayor's plan. Frankly, those are corporate trips that, number one, can bear the cost, and number two, we want those people to think, "Well, couldn't I just take the subway it would be faster and cheaper?"

Read more...