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."

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.

This issue could be resolved, as transportation expert Carolyn Konheim has suggested, by bumping up the congestion fee to $10 across the board. However, working out some sort of deal with the Port Authority without raising the fee seems more politically feasible at this point, especially in light of Sadik-Khan's hearing testimony:

There are still some questions to resolve on the issue of a greater Port Authority contribution to transit in New York. There is a legal issue with charging different prices to different groups of people, there is a political issue, because the Port Authority is a bi-state agency, and there is the policy question -- can the Port Authority again support the MTA capital program? It participated in the first MTA rebuilding program, from 1982-1986.

Offsetting part of the fee for low-income drivers, meanwhile, has long been rumored to be a pre-condition of Speaker Silver's support. The Bloomberg administration has hinted that it is working on some sort of manipulation of the earned income tax credit to accomplish this.

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

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.

Before posing his allotted two questions, Fidler took the opportunity to proclaim that "PlaNYC has 120 good ideas out of 121." After pricing takes effect, he then asked, "is there anything that will guarantee that the state gives the same amount to the MTA and transportation [as it did previously]?"

Aggarwala referred Fidler to page 23 of the congestion pricing bill, which specifically says that pricing revenue will not be used to offset any state funding. This seemed to catch the council member somewhat off guard. "Wonderful, but that's not a guarantee," he said.

When Sadik-Khan brought up the latest Quinnipiac poll, which showed that New Yorkers support pricing by a 2-1 margin if the revenues are spent on transit, Fidler conjured his own -- hypothetical -- survey results: "I think if you polled New Yorkers and asked them if they think the MTA will spend that money effectively, they would say, 10-1, 'No.' You'd find a strong number of New Yorkers that would be dubious of the claim that the state won't reduce transportation funding."

Fidler's second question had to do with the cost of administering residential parking permits, which will be available to residents at no charge in the current version of the congestion pricing bill. "Other cities charge a fee for parking permits," he said. "How much will taxpayers pay for RPP if there's no fee?"

"It was made very clear to us from public input that RPP should be free," replied Sadik-Khan. She added that DOT is still developing the specifics of how RPP will operate, but that "the early estimate is $1.8 million for administration costs citywide."

Other noteworthy exchanges and facts:

• 110,000 fewer vehicles will enter the central business district every day once pricing takes effect, according to the commissioner.
  
• In response to a question from Quinn about mitigating the park-and-ride effect, Sadik-Khan said, "We don't anticipate that this will be a problem. Parking is already at 98% capacity in these neighborhoods [adjacent to the zone]. We think it's unlikely that people will drive to these neighborhoods just to park and get on the subway, but we are mindful of those concerns, so we proposed RPP so that residents have priority to park in those neighborhoods."
• When Maria Baez, chair of the State and Federal Legislation Committee, asked if the proposed $65 late fee might be lowered, the commissioner said "No," explaining that $65 is the same fine levied for a parking violation.
• Asked by Staten Island Council member Michael McMahon whether police and firefighters would be granted congestion fee exemptions, Sadik-Khan responded: "That's not our intent right now. The exemption route is a slippery slope. We are trying to make a system that makes it easier for fire trucks to get around so they can save lives. Right now they are competing with traffic."
• When McMahon opined that the proposed transit improvements for Staten Island "didn't seem like much," Aggarwala said, "The expansion in express bus service -- that's a significant investment in the second most frequent means of getting to the CBD from Staten Island [after the ferry]. For the first time in a long time, the MTA has made a commitment to look at regions that are disadvantaged in terms of transit access."

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.

The other undecided Council member was Tish James, who represents Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. James first asked if low-income New Yorkers, especially those who have to make trips to Manhattan hospitals, would receive any discount under the current plan. Aggarwala responded by pointing out that most New Yorkers rely on transit or for-hire vehicles to make hospital trips. The transit riders will receive better service, he said, and cab fare will be lower as a result of reduced travel times, yielding a de facto drop in the cost of hospital trips.

James also reiterated Anthony Weiner's claim that pricing will give the federal government an excuse to reduce transit funding for New York, but seemed to back down from that position after Sadik-Khan and Aggarwala rebutted it. "What gave me consolation is that [the Bush] administration is a lame duck and their days are numbered," James said.

Stay tuned for more highlights, and don't forget tonight's hearing, when the council will receive public testimony.

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."

Teamsters president Gary LaBarbera is the one commissioner who Brodsky seems to treat with a noticeable sense of deference. LaBarbera added on to Shaw's thought:

I don't think we should start splitting hairs over whether this is about raising funds for the MTA or improving the environment or reducing VMT. The reality is that it's about all of those issues. Without funding for a realistic capital plan we can't continue the economic development of this region. I think it's important not to get bogged down. The capital funding is one of the critical issues that we as a Commission have to address, hopefully, in a way that will be palatable to the legislature in Albany and the City Council.

After a lengthy ramble from Assemblyman Denny Farrell about how toll booths on the Harlem River Bridges will "freeze up all of Northern Manhattan" on Yankee game nights (Response from a fellow commissioner: "Page 31 of the report says there would be no toll plazas or physical barriers where they don't already exist"), Brodsky finally stopped asking questions and laid his own cards on the table. "I have a deep philosophical objection to user fees and pricing mechanisms."  (Happy Hour? Airline tickets? The electricity bill?) He went on,

Which of the five plans reduces pollution the most and congestion the most? License plate rationing. But it doesn't generate revenues. Which is why I am for a carbon tax. Let's get it over with. The mayor proposed $15 per ton. I support the mayor. It was a national proposal but it doesn't have to be national. It could be in New York. The advantage is that the revenue would come from people who benefit from mass transit but don't necessarily use mass transit.

Long-Term Sustainability Chief Rit Aggarwala replied that a carbon tax would almost certainly need to be a federal initiative to work properly. "A carbon tax would be impractical for a municipality," Aggarwala said. "If you put a high tax on electricity in New York City you'd immediately drive out electricity intensive industries. Computer data centers, for example, would move to Westchester."

The carbon tax discussion prompted Shaw to remind the commissioners that their goal is to decide "something that's able to get accomplished."

Brodsky intensified, reminding Shaw that, traditionally, when Albany increases capital funding for transit it also gives more money to roads and bridges. "So, what's real and politically possible, Marc?" he asked. "Any mechanism that is geographically small will not pass the Albany test of linkage between roads, bridges and mass transit and you know it."

DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, who speaks sparingly in these meetings, chimed in, "This is not a tax commission. I understand the context in which Assemblyman Brodsky brought this up. But a debate over carbon taxes would more properly be considered by the State legislature. I suggest that they move forward on this."

Well played, Madame Commissioner.

With the carbon tax idea tabled, discussion turned to the idea of license plate rationing.

LaBarbera: "How do you tell a mother that your kid can only have fresh milk four out of five days a week? License plate rationing would turn the trucking industry upside down."

Shaw: "I can see the headline in the Post tomorrow: 'Brodsky Taxes Milk.'" Laughs.

Brodsky: "I move that we name all the toll plazas after Marc." More laughs.

Kathy Wylde: "The only place that ever tried rationing was Mexico City and it was fiasco."

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.

Traffic plan detour
Congestion panel may move boundary, make other changes to win support

BY ERIK ENGQUIST

The commission reviewing Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal is likely to overhaul it by moving the northern boundary from 86th Street to 60th Street and simplifying enforcement.

According to people involved in the process, members of the panel believe the changes are necessary because polls and hearings show that support for the plan is shaky and hinges on whether it would generate enough mass-transit funding.

"Because of the public hearings and the issues raised by the Assembly and others, a whole range of issues is being looked at," says Marc Shaw, chairman of the commission. "The overall desire is to find a way to reduce congestion and do it in a way that doesn't have a negative impact on the economy."

The 17 commission members, appointed by city and state lawmakers, are expected to make other changes as well to increase revenues, make the fee scheme fairer to city drivers and ease privacy concerns.

The panel is awaiting projections on the impact of possible changes but appears certain to drastically reduce the hundreds of cameras proposed, many of which were to be used to track vehicles within the congestion zone. Shedding cameras would mollify civil libertarians and help slash administrative costs-initially projected to eat up 40% of revenues-to 25% or less, freeing up more money for transit projects. Better bus and subway service is essential to winning the approvals needed from the City Council and the state Legislature.

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. A 60th Street boundary would eliminate the fee for drivers who stop short of midtown and ease fears that commuters would treat residential streets above 86th Street as park-and-rides.

The New Jersey problem
A thornier matter is how much to charge suburbanites who drive into the city, especially New Jersey residents, whose congestion fees would be entirely offset by their Hudson River tolls under the mayor's plan. City lawmakers, whose support is crucial for any plan to be adopted next year, consider it unfair that revenues would come entirely from their constituents.

"Key issues for legislators will be [the amount of] revenues raised for the mass-transit budget, and equity," says Kathryn Wylde, who represents the City Council on the commission and is president of the Partnership for New York City. "They cannot swallow having some people pay a charge based on where they live, and other people, particularly non-New Yorkers, pay nothing."

But hitting toll payers with a congestion fee might discourage so many from driving that toll revenues would plunge for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs other tunnels and bridges. Both authorities rely on toll money to fund debt obligations.

"It's an issue," says Mr. Shaw, a former first deputy mayor for Mr. Bloomberg.

City, Long Island fight looms
The question of whether to let Long Island commuters avoid congestion fees could spark a battle between their Republican senators and Democratic Assembly members from the city. Under the Bloomberg plan, these drivers' Midtown Tunnel tolls would offset their $8 daily fee.

Indeed, each modification to the proposal will threaten its delicate balance.

"Changing the plan will mean revisiting all the concessions and considerations involved with the MTA and Port Authority in particular, but also the state Department of Transportation, the state of New Jersey and the jurisdictions of Long Island and Westchester," says Ms. Wylde. "It's just not that simple."

For example, tolling the East River bridges would sabotage pricing's political support in Brooklyn. "I will not support any aspect of congestion pricing if tolling of the bridges is in it," says Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. "That's off the table."

Nevertheless, Mr.Shaw says it "is something that's being looked at."

State law requires the commission to finish its work by Jan. 31, so pressure will intensify in the coming weeks. "At some point, it has to be 'Pencils down' on the research," says commission member Andrew Darrell, regional director of advocacy group Environmental Defense. "And we'll have to move forward with a plan."

"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.

"The reason why congestion pricing is such a compelling tool," Aggarwala said, "is because it's the kind of solution that does all these things at once. It raises money, it gets people out of their cars, it cleans the air…"

Farrell, who was first elected to the Assembly in 1974, around the time that Aggarwala was likely starting nursery school, raised his voice, "You didn't answer the question."

Northern Manhattan Assembly member Herman "Denny" Farrell

They went back and forth a bit on traffic modeling and mode share numbers until Farrell zeroed in what on what seemed to be his issue. "Pricing will not effect anyone coming from New Jersey," Farrell said. "I live right next to the George Washington Bridge. Come visit us on a Friday afternoon. Starting about 100th Street traffic is jammed, stopped dead. Nothing you're doing here will effect that."

Brodksy was next.

"I don't think this is the time to argue," he said. "My problem is that I don't understand what you've proposed."

Unlike the Commission's other two Assembly members, who seemed most passionately concerned with issues immediate to their own districts, Brodsky posed broader questions about the Commission's mandate, how traffic reduction and air quality claims were being measured, and revenue.

In what may very well be the set up for a legal challenge to push for an Environmental Impact Study, Brodsky repeatedly pressed the point that the Commission didn't have enough information to approve the Mayor's congestion pricing pilot program.

"What are you asking us to consider?" he asked Aggarwala. "What are we statutorily bound to consider? How do you measure the health and air quality impacts in your plan? How do we know the air quality impacts of this plan on Jackson Heights, Queens?"

Aggarwala took a stab at answering some of his questions but Brodsky still felt he didn't have the information he needed.

"I don't get it," he said.

"We have four months to use this Commission for this very purpose," Shaw replied.

Other Commissioners -- you can find their bios here -- laid some of their issues on the table as well.

Russianoff said he wanted more guidance from the city on residential parking permits and how the proposed MTA toll and fare hikes might impact the traffic reduction and mode shift projections made in the Mayor's plan.

Tom Egan wanted to know why there were no new bus routes proposed for Southeastern Queens.

Ed Ott wondered what would happen to the city's mass transit system if congestion pricing revenue didn't materialize.

Richard Bivone asked whether the MTA could handle the additional riders.

Elizabeth Yeampierre wanted more specific information about how the Mayor's plan would improve the environmental and health problems in Bronx and Brooklyn neighborhoods that "are host to the city's highway infrastructure and environmental burdens."

And with arms crossed, head cocked and a tone of skepticism in her voice, Assembly member Vivian Cook made it clear that "that Queens County and Long Island City aren't going to become a parking lot for the region."

The meeting closed with Brodsky peppering Sander and DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, also a Commissioner, with revenue-related questions. Brodsky wanted clarity on whether congestion pricing revenues would be used to pay for MTA capital projects or MTA operating expenses. He also asserted that New York City's agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation doesn't "contain any commitment of funds" and "gives the feds the right to give us nothing even if we pass congestion pricing."

Sander, hinting that the public forum might not be the ideal "context" for he and Brodsky to hash out some of these issues, said, "We do not anticipate use of any congestion pricing funds for operating assistance. Zero. Our position is that if we were to approve congestion pricing, that funds should be used for our capital program." Specifically, Sander said, if he had his "druthers," congestion pricing revenues would go towards building the Second Avenue subway, updating the Authority's 19th century signal system, improving transit service in the outer boroughs and a variety of other projects.

As for the $354.5 million commitment from the federal government, Sadik-Khan told Brodsky, "We do have a commitment from the US DOT and from DOT Secretary Mary Peters and I'd be happy to sit with you and clarify that."

Shaw said that the Commission will be meeting approximately once a month between now and February and will host a number of public hearings along the way as well.

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?"

AN: Would you be open to adding more exemptions if that comes up during the commission discussion?

RA: I think the real challenge with exemptions is that they are a slippery slope. You don't want government to be in the business of making the decision over who is driving for a good reason who is driving for an unacceptable reason. If you get into that business you wind up with all sorts of problems about how you judge. If it's not based on, say, a handicapped license plate or some pre-existing handicapped permit, does that mean we have to establish a whole new bureaucracy for assessing who's really in need of driving or not?

I know there was a proposal to exempt Rockland County residents because the transit options from Rockland County aren't as good as other parts of the region. But if you do that, well, there are also parts of Brooklyn where the transit options aren't as good. You wind up almost having to go down to the individual level to measure how long it takes someone to walk to the subway and take the subway into Manhattan. I don't know how you do that.

AN: How will it work inside the pricing zone when people need to move their cars on street cleaning day?

RA: We will want to talk to technology vendors about the specific metrics or the specific decision rules and the billing system for how you'd do that. But there are any number of ways you could do it. Since we know by neighborhood, in fact, we know block by block when people are likely to have to move their cars to deal with alternate side parking, you could build that into the billing system.

Likewise, you could do something where you have to drive a certain number of blocks before you get charged. There are any number of ways you could do that using camera placement or billing logic. We don't have a good proposal yet, but we have enough different ideas that we're pretty confident we can make it work.

AN: If you keep a car inside the pricing zone and want to move the car either within or outside of the zone, how does the charging work?

RA: They pay. The rules are that if you are only moving within the zone during the 6:00 am to 6:00 pm period, you're only going to pay $4 not $8. And that's true wherever you live. If, for example, you drive in from Brooklyn or New Jersey at 5:30 in the morning and you're driving around in the zone at 7:00 and you keep your car parked until 6:00 pm when pricing turns off, you're only going to pay $4. You're not going to pay $8 because you were only driving within the zone during the charging period.

So, a resident who lives in Hells Kitchen, say, and owns a car and decides for whatever reason that he's going to drive down to City Hall during the day is only going to pay $4. But if that person drives out of the zone between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm, our proposal is they pay $8. The reason for that is that if they choose to drive out at 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon when everybody else is also driving out, they're making a significant contribution to congestion.

AN: I promised this interview would be about the policy not the politics but what do you think is the key to moving congestion pricing forward?

RA: Educating people about what congestion pricing really is, and what it isn't. There are a lot of myths out there, some of which have been perpetuated by the opposition. We need to make sure people are aware of what the proceeds could be used for and what the benefits would be. We need to ask New Yorkers to start thinking about what alternatives we have for reducing congestion and improving transit. The answer is we don't really have any good alternatives. The 17 member Congestion Mitigation Commission and the timetable that we've agreed to with the legislatures and the governor allows us a little more time to make our case and explain this to people.

AN: Speaking of timetables, I see we're out of time. Thanks for doing this. Are you sick of answering these same questions over and over again?

RA: I'm kind of used to it at this point.

Rohit Aggarwala, New York City's Director of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, sat down to answer some of the more frequently asked questions about Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for a three-year congestion pricing pilot program. Below is the third part of our four part interview. Here is Part 1 and Part 2.

Aaron Naparstek: Mayor Bloomberg's plan proposes that all of the congestion pricing revenue would go to a new public authority called the SMART Fund. Why not let the MTA receive the funds? Why is it a good idea to create a new bureaucracy?

Rohit Aggarwala: I think that's one of those things that has to be discussed and worked out. Our proposal was to create the SMART Fund. Roughly half of its revenue would come from congestion pricing, the other half would be a joint contribution from the city and state. By devoting the revenue to a new financing board that would make regional decisions about transportation investment priorities, that would be one way that you can prevent the money from disappearing.

There are a variety of other ways you can do it. I think the commission and the state legislature and the governor are going to wind up weighing in on whether the SMART Fund is the right way. But I think there is near universal agreement that congestion pricing revenue should be dedicated to transit investment.

AN: What transit enhancements will the City undertake prior to the launch of congestion pricing?

RA: The proposal that we submitted jointly with the MTA and the State to the U.S. Department of Transportation envisioned a number of things, the most important was the roll out of more than 300 new buses. The buses would be used for increasing the frequency of bus service, new express routes, and some enhanced express bus service to specific areas within the suburbs.

What's particularly important in terms of making those buses move quickly are some of the Bus Rapid Transit improvements that the City will do, like signal prioritization, automated bus lane enforcement, and some of the incremental improvements that, for example, could facilitate easier transfers from certain bus lines to certain subway stations, things like that.

AN: If congestion pricing is so successful that it removes 112,000 daily car trips from the streets, will the subway system have the capacity to handle all of the new riders?

RA: Yes. On those few lines where there's truly no more capacity during rush hour, the plan takes that into account and creates new capacity on the bus routes that would allow people who use those crowded subway lines to switch over to buses. We think that we can enhance bus service so that it's faster and more attractive.

I think one of things that most people miss is that it's not like all 112,000 drivers are going to switch over to the 7 train or the Lexington Line during rush hour. There are lots of subway lines that, even at rush hour, have the capacity for more frequency or more cars and a lot of the people who will switch will actually be riding during the middle of the day. That is a time when the river crossings are not at capacity, but the street grid in Manhattan is at its most congested. So, that's a time when it's very easy to switch somebody onto the subway system because the subways are by no means at capacity at lunchtime.

AN: Will congestion pricing funds be used for public space, bicycling, and pedestrian improvements?

RA: We envisioned congestion pricing partially funding the completion of the city's Bike Master Plan. The Bike Master Plan is, of course, a tiny about of money compared to the Second Avenue Subway. But because bicycling contributes to a reduction in auto-based transportation, bike projects are something that I think should be eligible. We didn't include pedestrian plazas or things like that in the financing but we made a commitment in PlaNYC to do those projects. There's a lot that DOT is already beginning to work on. The concrete changes do take time but it's a new regime over there, and I think they are really pushing that kind of thinking as quickly as it goes.

Konheim, who is a proponent of tolling the East River bridges, argues that Esposito's record of protecting motorist privilege eventually led to what she calls "an unnecessarily costly structure of Mayor Bloomberg's otherwise crucial initiative to get New Yorkers out of their cars and onto better subways and buses."

The Mayor's congestion pricing brain trust, including purveyors of high-tech traffic detection, saw in London's on-street charging system a way to make an end-run around what they saw as the lingering Meade mindset regarding bridge tolls. Ignoring the recent comprehensive studies about the effectiveness of various scenarios of tolling the free bridges, the mayoral team proposed a charging system entirely in Manhattan that had a single political benefit.

For years, planners have advocated a London-style cordon, which would run across the 60th Street boundary of the Manhattan Central Business District, river to river, and impose tolls at all river crossings leading to the CBD. Instead, the Mayor's plan calls for thousands of camera and E-ZPass monitors at hundreds of sites around and within the charging zone. The internal charging stations are intended to charge car trips that begin and end within the zone a fee of $4 per day, and charge trucks $21.

When the Deputy Mayor of London was told about charging intrazone fees, she said, "It's complicated enough with a single cordon. Why would you want to do that?" Whereas London only charges residents of the charging zone a 10% fee on re-entry and trucks the same as cars, the Mayor's plan banks heavily on intrazone trips for revenues. Without any explanatory data, it's difficult to discern if the forecasts account for the more than a third of intra-zonal trips that are by taxis or livery vehicles and would be exempt from any fee. Most of all, there is no accounting for the cost of operating a network of multiple charging cordons, which will surely exceed the 42% collection and enforcement cost of London's single cordon system, possibly adding up to more than half of gross revenues.

The bottom line is that an unnecessarily elaborate congestion charging network will reduce revenues for transit to about $250 million a year. In contrast, installing E-ZPass monitors on the four free bridges and across 60th Street would likely net more than $500 million a year for transit and more reliably garner the desired benefits in reduced congestion and faster commutes. These revenues would increase as MTA tolls increased and could be dedicated to improving transit service, not keeping transit afloat.

Can the need to circumvent Meade Esposito's legacy be worth the loss of $2.5 billion over a decade in revenues for transit? Or will the fact-finding process over the coming months reveal what makes a pricing system that equalizes tolls on all entries so effective: it benefits motorists with faster travel everywhere; it provides transit riders with the most revenue for transit; and it boosts local economies by freeing up road space for drivers with local destinations.

NYC Director of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Rohit Aggarwala discussed why the city decided not to propose tolling the East River bridges in part two of our interview series.

UPDATE: The 2003 analysis of bridge tolls by the "two-man team" mentioned in Konheim's article is available here (PDF).

Photo: Docman/Flickr

This is the second segment of a four-part interview with New York City's Director of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, Rohit Aggarwala. We're talking about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal for a three-year congestion pricing pilot project in New York City. Part 1 of our interview can be found here.

Aaron Naparstek: Why does the mayor's congestion pricing plan designate 86th Street as the northern boundary rather than 60th Street, which is traditionally considered the top of the Central Business District?

Rohit Aggarwala: There are a couple of problems with 60th Street as a boundary for congestion pricing. The CBD traditionally ends at 60th Street, but on the west side up in the 60s you've got Lincoln Center, ABC TV, and other big office buildings. On the east side, you've got the hospitals, the buildings to the north of Bloomingdale's and the museums. There are lots of non-residential destinations for drivers well above 60th Street. That's the first issue.

Second, if you look at traffic patterns, it's not as if the traffic immediately dissipates as you cross 60th Street going northbound. Depending on the time of day, depending on which avenue you're looking at, the traffic really changes in the quality of the congestion and delay somewhere between 72nd and 110th Street. And so while that doesn't dictate 86th as exactly the right line, it suggests that the boundary should be somewhere north of 60th Street.

Finally, some people have argued that people are going to drive in and park in Greenpoint or park on 87th Street and take the subway the rest of the way in and, frankly, we don't see that as being a big risk. Compared to a round trip subway ride, you're only saving $4 and you're adding a lot of time to your trip, both because the parking itself is scarce and because the subway trip will add time. So, it's unclear to us why anybody really would do that.

But if somebody is going to Bloomingdale's on 59th Street, certainly, if you charge $8 to drive south of 60th Street they're going to park on 61st and walk. And if somebody is going to Columbus Circle or Carnegie Hall, or any of the many businesses and offices in the 50s, you are more likely to have that parking problem.

So, those three reasons combined suggested to us that the boundary ought to be somewhere between 72nd and 110th Street. We picked 86th Street as a place that we thought made sense but as the mayor has said many times, we're open to conversation about that.

AN: Wouldn't it be far less expensive and nearly just as effective simply to toll the East River bridges?

RA: Not really. The largest vector through which cars enter the Central Business District is not the East River, it's 60th Street. More cars are coming south from upper Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester than are crossing the East River. So, you would get some of the benefit by only tolling the bridges but you wouldn't get all of it.

Furthermore, we believe that it's very important to toll traffic inside the zone. You would never want to have the situation where you're charging people who are driving in from places that have lesser transit access while inadvertently encouraging Manhattan residents to buy cars and drive around Manhattan for free. That would be a complete mistake.

AN: Won't the current plan send a lot of excess traffic congestion onto Manhattan's East and West side highways since there will be no charge to drive on them?

RA: I don't think so. Frankly, with the congestion you have on the Manhattan street grid, it would be a bit of an irrational if your destination is Harlem or the George Washington Bridge and you come across the Brooklyn Bridge, why would you drive up Broadway rather then just getting on one of those highways? What we don't want to do is charge to drive on the East and West side highways and wind up pushing the traffic that's currently on the FDR Drive onto the BQE. That doesn't necessarily benefit anybody.

AN: If New Jersey commuters are only paying an additional $3 atop the tolls they already pay to cross the Hudson, is that really enough of a price increase to prevent them from driving?

RA: It's going to have an impact. It might have a lesser impact because it's a lesser increase in the costs that they are currently paying. One of the reasons that we went with the credit and made every crossing the same price is to make sure that you reduce the instance of, say, people driving down Flatbush Avenue to cross a less expensive Manhattan Bridge when the more direct ride takes them through the Battery Tunnel.

Keep in mind, the credit doesn't only apply to New Jersey commuters. It's the same thing with people who currently drive in through the Battery Tunnel and the Midtown Tunnel. They will have a lesser price increase under the mayor's proposal. The fact is they are already paying something. They're making the decision that driving is worth the cost. And that's all we want to do is make people make that decision.

The goal here is not to force people out of their cars, the goal is to encourage people who have good transit options to take transit and to reduce the perverse incentive we've currently got, which is that for some people it may actually be cheaper to drive than to take transit.

AN: Why not feather the fees at the start and the end of the charging periods as was done in Stockholm so, say, driving in at 6:00 am is cheaper than driving in at 8:00 am during the absolute rush hour peak?

RA: It's a concept we're open to. As with so many things, the issue is creating a balance between precision and simplicity. The most precise thing you could do would be to have variable fees that depend on the actual level of traffic at a given time. The challenge here is that a price signal only works if people understand it. So, you need some level of simplicity. We went with a very simple approach that's just kind of binary but I think we're open to the idea of feathering or any other variation that might make it work better as long as we're all convinced, and eventually the commission itself will have to be convinced, that people will be able to understand it.

Among New York State Assembly Democrats, that has been one of the most frequent criticisms of Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for a three-year congestion pricing pilot project in New York City. Last month, Lower Manhattan Assembly member Deborah Glick said that she and her colleagues were "confronted with a dearth of information regarding the Mayor's proposal." Bronx Assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz made similar complaints in an editorial to the Riverdale Press a couple of weeks ago. 

In an attempt to get answers to some of the more frequently asked questions about congestion pricing, I did what I assume any state legislator could do just as easily, if not more so. I called Rohit Aggarwala and asked him for a meeting to talk about congestion pricing. He agreed.

Aggarwala is New York City's Director of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability and the lead author of Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030. We met for about 45 minutes on a Monday afternoon in August in a conference room at the Mayor's Office of Operations. I've divided the interview into four parts. Here is the first part:

Aaron Naparstek: How are you enjoying the job? It's been what? A year?

Rohit Aggarwala: Fourteen crazy months, actually. It was June 12th when I started.

AN: A lot has happened since then.

RA: It's been amazing. It seems like only yesterday but it's been a lot of work.

AN: I bet.

RA: Had we just written the plan, that itself would have been a lot of work, but to do so with the input that we got from the advisory board and the town hall meetings -- all of the input makes the plan better -- but it meant a lot more work too.

AN: Having gone through that public input process, what is your impression of how New Yorkers view transportation issues and the idea of congestion pricing?

RA: New Yorkers are keenly aware of the problem that we have in terms of transportation congestion. Whether it's on the roads, on your daily subway commute or just walking through Time Square, we all know that mobility is a challenge. Everybody wants to solve the problem. The challenge is that nobody really wants to pay for it. Everybody thinks that the other guy shouldn't be driving, but I'm driving for all the right reasons. Everybody says, sure, I want more people on transit, but not on my train because I want to get a seat. And, yeah, we need more money for transportation investment, but don't take it out of my wallet.

But thinking back to the town hall meetings, far more people were in favor of congestion pricing than anybody would have thought just a year ago. If you told a politician a year ago that when asked point blank, "Should we have congestion pricing in Manhattan," without even being told that the money would go to transit, that nearly 40 percent of New Yorkers would say, "Yes," nobody would have believed that high a number was possible.

AN: A Wall Street Journal opinion piece was forwarded to me recently that said, "Their goal isn't easing congestion at all, it's raising money. The city's plan foresees only negligible improvements in traffic density and speeds, less than 8 percent, but millions for the city to spend on other priorities." Is the congestion pricing just about raising money?

RA: If all the mayor had wanted was additional revenue, there would be far easier ways to get it than to engage in the congestion pricing debate. It would have been so much easier for us to find the money in a different way.

That quote that you just read completely misses the fact that this money isn't going to be for the city to spend. Our proposal was that the revenue goes to the SMART Fund, which the city would have only a 50% voice in. Others have proposed the money goes to the MTA. The bottom line is congestion pricing revenue is not going into the city's budget, it's going towards transit.

It's misleading to say that we're only doing this for the revenue. The reason that congestion pricing is such a powerful concept, and the reason that the mayor, who was initially skeptical about it, warmed to it and now has obviously embraced it and believes in it quite strongly, is that it solves multiple challenges at once. It reduces traffic while raising money for transit. And it gets people to think more about the personal choices they make.

Just like you get charged every time you decide to take the subway, and that makes you think about whether you want to use this scarce resource that costs money to provide, you also want a price on making the decision to drive into one of the most congested and transit-rich areas in North America. That's the goal.

I've heard time and time again, that the 8 percent increase in vehicle speeds is a negligible difference. But that's 112,000 cars a day off of the streets. That's hardly a negligible difference. What people often don't understand is that a reduction in 6.3 percent of vehicle miles traveled, or an increase in speed of 8 percent -- those are averages. Those changes make a big difference because the bulk of that speed improvement isn't going to come at 5:00 in the morning, or on one of those few streets that you can find during rush hour that isn't crowded. Those improvements are going to be concentrated on the streets that currently have the worst congestion.

But what really counts to the driver is the reduction in delay -- the reduction in the amount of time you're stuck in traffic. London found that the increase in average speed translates to a reduction of driver delay by at least a factor of two. So, an 8 percent increase in average vehicle speed translates to a 15 to 20 percent reduction in driver delay. That is sizable.

AN: Many say they are concerned that congestion pricing will hurt New York City's poor, middle class, and small business people. How do you respond to that?

RA: I think its fundamentally not true. If you look at New York City as a whole, if you look at every class of people, however you want to define class, the majority of New Yorkers rely on transit far more than they rely on automobiles. Are the relatively small percentage of New York's middle class that drives into Manhattan everyday going to be hurt by congestion pricing? Potentially. But in exchange for $8, those who continue to drive are going to get a more reliable drive, a more comfortable drive, a faster drive.

When it comes to transportation, the best thing we can do for New York City's middle class has nothing to do with what goes on on the roads, it's what we can do in the subways. That's why it's so important to use the proceeds for transit improvements.

As for small businesses, I think it's exactly the same kind of thing. Even if you assume that small businesses do rely on driving, the efficiency gains from reducing traffic by 6.3 percent translates into greater productivity. So, for a cost of $8, a van delivering flowers can make one or two extra deliveries a day with the same vehicle and the same labor costs. The reduction in traffic congestion has more than made up for the incremental increase in transportation cost. As for bigger trucks, most of them are already paying tolls.

AN: Still, if it costs more for trucks to transport goods, won't that translate to price increases for all New York City consumers across the board?

RA: London has seen nothing to indicate that that's the case. Stockholm, in some very detailed analysis of what goes on downtown, has actually seen an increase in customers to local businesses because the pedestrian spaces are that much more attractive with fewer cars clogging the roads. So, Stockholm has actually seen small business directly benefiting from congestion pricing.

Really, how much inflation can you create on an entire truckload of goods by adding $21? There were some outrageous numbers being thrown around about how congestion pricing will cause all groceries to go up by 10 percent or something. When these claims come up, do the math. If a $21 charge on a truckload of milk translates into a 10 percent increase in the cost of a gallon of milk, that means they are using an entire truck to deliver something like 10 gallons of milk per day.

There's so much misinformation that people are putting out there to scare people.

• Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff estimated congestion pricing would remove 112,000 cars from city streets on a daily basis, with 94,000 would-be drivers switching to transit, in what he said would be "Probably the single greatest mode shift anywhere."

• DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller said that whatever edge effect might be felt would be countered by removing 112,000 cars from traffic.

• Using existing E-ZPass technology, congestion pricing fees would be enforced by employing one camera per lane at 300 to 340 stations.
  

• Assembly Member Richard Brodsky more than once referred to congestion pricing as a "regressive tax," and seemed fixated on what motorists would gain in speed inside the congestion pricing zone. Brodsky's Friday line of questioning was encapsulated in one pre-hearing quote from the Daily News: "Why is this worth a regressive tax on the middle class and a new invasion of privacy to go only six-tenths of a mile further in an hour?"

• Also said by Assemblyman Brodsky during the hearing: "privacy values"; "tremendously unpersuaded"; "I don't have a plan, Mr. Doctoroff."
  

• Queens Assembly Member Cathy Nolan leveled the mayor with a number of pointed questions and comments about the magnitude and efficacy of the pricing scheme. Nolan, a strong supporter of public transit who is considered a thoughtful lawmaker by many advocates, wondered why no Environmental Impact Statement was required and why the City Council did not need to pass a home rule message before the state legislature considered pricing. Deputy Mayor Doctoroff answered that pilot projects do not need an EIS. He added that a home rule message was not required. Nolan followed by asking why fees from residential parking would potentially go the city's general fund and not a dedicated transit fund. She also asserted that the worst air pollution hotspot in Queens was at the tolled Queens Midtown Tunnel and not the untolled Queensboro Bridge. Implicit in Nolan's remarks is that pricing does not work. She concluded by calling congestion pricing "extremely problematical" for areas outside Manhattan.

• Responding to a query from Nolan, PlaNYC Director Rohit Aggarwala said that panel trucks, of the type owned and operated by many small businesses, would be subject to an $8 fee. The $21 charge would apply to large trucks, as defined by the MTA, exceeding a weight of 7,000 pounds.
  

• Mayor Bloomberg said residential permit parking may or may not be established in conjunction with congestion pricing.

• Assembly Member David Gantt, who chairs the Transportation Committee, worried about the burden of "poor" people who might drive into the city ignorant of the fact that there is a congestion charge, and who would end up owing exorbitant late fees. Bloomberg assured Gantt there would be plenty of publicity and signage.

• James Brennan, assemblyman from Brooklyn, asked the mayor what would happen if transit trips take so long that outer borough residents make the "rational choice" and decide to drive anyway. Bloomberg replied that even if congestion were not reduced, the charge would still enable needed transit investments.

• DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan was unable to attend due to previous plans to be out of the country.

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."

Climate change is a greater threat to London than terrorism, one of the city's top planners said yesterday.

Debbie McMullen (right), a one-time New Yorker who heads implementation of the "London Plan," made this matter-of-fact announcement at a Tuesday evening forum, sponsored by the Forum for Urban Design and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and held at the Center for Architecture in the East Village. As New York awaits the unveiling of Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030, McMullen outlined the "spatial development strategy" that London Mayor Ken Livingstone has spearheaded during his seven years in office.

Like PlaNYC, the London Plan, published in 2004, is designed to help mitigate the environmental impacts of a predicted one million new residents in the coming decades. Backed by the power of the Greater London Authority (GLA) -- a city-wide governmental structure established in 2000 -- the London Plan integrates sustainable development practices with innovative social and economic policies.

As London becomes "younger, more female and less white," said McMullen, the city wants to build 305,000 new housing units over the next 10 years, spread throughout its 32 boroughs. The London Plan calls for 50 percent of those units to be priced for low- and moderate-income citizens. New construction standards cover insulation requirements, building orientation (to make the most of solar power potential), green (or "living") roofs, and renewable on-site energy.

To reduce CO2 from vehicle emissions -- in addition to congestion charging, which McMullen said has reduced car trips by 50,000 per day -- the London Plan prescribes that scattered "town centres" in the boroughs be linked by public transport routes radiating from the city core, along with other light rail and tram service. The city's canals are to be relied upon for ferrying more freight and waste, reducing truck traffic on the streets.

The plan is aimed at nothing less than making London a "zero emission city," said McMullen, with CO2 reduction targets of 30 percent by 2025, and 60 percent by 2050.

Rather than imposing mandates to achieve its goals, the GLA works in tandem with the private sector. Though "there is some resistance," as would be expected, grievances are heard by an independent panel and addressed in public. The plan is also monitored through regular progress reports.

"It's not a plan to sit on the shelf," McMullen said. "The mayor wants it to happen."

It is already paying dividends. Said David Haskell, executive director of the Forum for Urban Design, in introducing McMullen: "The reason London won the (2012) Olympics is that London knows its future."

Joining McMullen for a brief Q&A, Rohit Aggarwala, Director of PlaNYC, downplayed New York City's loss of the 2012 games, saying it hasn't slowed new development. One of the few insights Aggarwala offered into PlaNYC came after an audience member asked about planned improvements to the pedestrian environment. While McMullen replied in some detail how pedestrian and cyclist safety was a top priority of the London Plan, Aggarwala cited PlaNYC's goal of locating a city park within 10 minutes' walking distance of every New Yorker.

Trafalgar Square photo: Aaron Naparstek, March 3, 2007

Rohit Aggarwala, the management consultant tasked by Bloomberg with heading up the new project (pictured right), began by laying out the PlaNYC goals, a laundry list of urban niceties that it should be hard for anyone to disagree with: more housing, parks within a 10-minute walk for all residents, a well-maintained transportation grid, cleaner air and land and water. (All these were in the newspaper insert the city placed in local newspapers back in December; if you missed it, you can still download one from the mayor's website.) Noting that "sustainability" is a "terribly overused word," Aggarwala nonetheless offered his own definition: "a city that is cleaner, healthier, more reliable, and in general better."

The devil, of course, lies in the details, something that NYNV's assembled panel of architects and planners wasted no time in pointing out to Aggarwala, even as they gave the mayor points for just raising the questions:

• Where will the new housing for all these new New Yorkers go, and who will be living in it? "The million people who are coming are not coming with MBAs," noted Bloomberg's former Housing Preservation and Development Commissioner Jerilyn Perine, saying the city needs to be "screaming our heads off for a new [federal] public housing program." (Less seriously, she also suggested "trading Staten Island to New Jersey for Newark.")
• "I don't want to be the harbinger of doom here," began structural engineer Joseph Tortorella, "but I will be." The flood of new construction already underway in the city, he said, is already creating a rush to use non-union labor to keep up with the workload, something he worries could lead to "a war in this city" that will make inflatable rats seem tame. The quality of work is also already at "a dangerous level," he said, with city building sites averaging one collapse a week.
• How will all this be paid for, and what gets cut from the agenda if the money falls short? "This is a great PR beginning," said former City Planning Commission chair Donald Elliott, stressing he meant that as a compliment. "But you're going to have to get into some evaluation of the opportunities and constraints."

And that's not even getting into some of the bigger questions about PlaNYC: Will new residents, most expected to be immigrants from Asia and Central and South America, really "bring jobs" with them, as Aggarwala asserted? If the city swells to 9 million people, what happens to the surrounding suburbs? And while the "GreeNYC" portion of the plan sets a laudable goal of cutting city carbon emissions by 30% (and cleaning up pollution), there's little else about preparing for what's likely to be a radically altered climate 23 years hence. Talk of a "more reliable" New York is likely to sound quaint if the Stillwell Avenue subway terminal has been washed out to sea.

NYNV has scheduled working group meetings the next three Fridays to follow up on last night's meeting, but the more interesting bit will likely be the public town hall meetings that Aggarwala promised would be announced soon. That's when the mayor should hear from not just those who hope to design the future New York, but those who hope to live in it.

Photo: SvdR on Flickr

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been cruising through his second term. At this point, with a gaudy approval rating, Bloomberg should be willing to risk his popularity on behalf of a life-and-death subject. But on global warming, Bloomberg has so far been more gesture than guts.

It is only now, five years into his reign, that Bloomberg has started considering the broader changes that could bring striking improvements, and that might inflict short-term political pain. In December, he raised the stakes at a flashy press conference in Flushing Meadows, introducing his "sustainability" agenda for the city through 2030. The speech was long on meritorious goals and almost completely free of specifics. Those are supposed to arrive in March or April.

The mayor's sustainability brain trust is headed by Rohit Aggarwala, an academic expert in city history who was working as a management consultant at the ubiquitous McKinsey & Co. before being hired by Dan Doctoroff. The task force is mulling anti-car ideas that could stir serious rage, like shrinking the number of parking spaces in Manhattan. But Bloomberg punted on congestion pricing, which would have cut traffic and pollution, because he considers it politically impractical, and he's far more likely to pursue technocratic and financial avenues.

When

Tuesday, December 12th, 2006, 11:00 am

Where

The Queens Museum of Art in Flushing Meadows, Corona Park, Queens

The speech is the next step forward for the Long-Term Sustainability initiative that Mayor Bloomberg announced during a visit with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California on September 21.

As reported by Streetsblog, the Sustainability office is headed by Rohit Aggarwala and, we can only hope, has been significantly influenced by the work of Dr. Rachel Weinberger, an Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in land use and transportation planning.

And, yes, this is the big sustainability speech that Streetsblog incorrectly reported was happening last month. Hey, if the headline is labeled "Rumor Mill" take it with a grain of salt. Still, the editorial commentary from that story still applies to tomorrow's big speech:

There are high hopes that tomorrow's public unveiling, whatever it may show, begins to lay the groundwork for a serious traffic reduction program in New York City, perhaps in the form of London-style congestion charging. With this year's elections out of the way there is no longer any worry that the inevitably difficult public discussion of congestion charging might force a gubernatorial candidate into a corner. Governor Elect Spitzer's vow to raise subway fares only as a last resort almost guarantees an MTA fiscal crisis in the coming months. Might a fiscal crisis also serve as the impetus for a congestion charging push? Among political insiders there is a feeling that the only possible way to sell congestion charging to New York is in response to a serious crisis. In other words, the Doctor needs to make it clear that the patient is sick and needs to make dificult, but ultimately fulfilling, lifestyle changes.

And it's important to note that the Mayor can do a ton to enhance New York City's long-term sustainability without London-style congestion charging.

• The creation of the Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability.
• The undertaking of a major greenhouse gas inventory for City government and the City overall.
• The appointment of a Sustainability Advisory Board to advise the City on environmentally sound policies and practices.
• The creation of a new partnership with the Earth Institute of Columbia University to provide the City with scientific research and advice on environmental and climate change-related issues.

Here are some of the more interesting snippets from the City's press release:

The announcement took place during a visit with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Bloom Energy in Sunnyvale, California, where the Mayor and Governor talked about the State of California's groundbreaking sustainability initiatives.

"Now, we intend to make New York City a national leader in meeting the challenge of making ours an environmentally sustainable city. To make New York a truly sustainable city, we need a bold plan to use our land in the smartest way possible," Bloomberg said (Editor: Clearly the Mayor here is referring to this morning's Park(ing) Squat in Midtown).

The Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability is led by Director Rohit T. Aggarwala the Office's mission is three-fold: to help develop a plan for the City's long-term growth and development, to integrate sustainability goals and practices into every aspect of that plan; and to make New York City government a "green" organization.

The Mayor announced the launch of an unprecedented effort to measure the entire carbon emissions of New York City. This much broader effort, with a target completion date within six months, will give us the first picture of the total carbon impact of everyone who lives in, works in, or visits New York City.

The Sustainability Advisory Board will be chaired by Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding Daniel L. Doctoroff, and its kick-off meeting will take place on Wednesday, September 27th.

Members of the Sustainability Advisory Board include:

• Christine Quinn, Speaker of the New York City Council
• James F. Gennaro, Council Member and Chair of the Committee on Environmental Protection
• Carlton Brown, COO and Founder, Full Spectrum
• Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director, New York League of Conservation Voters
• Robert Fox, Partner, Cook + Fox Architects
• Ester Fuchs, Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs
• Peter Goldmark, Program Director of NYC Office, Environmental Defense
• Ashok Gupta, Program Director of Air and Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Michael Northrop, Program Officer of Sustainable Development, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
• Ed Ott, Executive Director, NYC Central Labor Council
• Elizabeth Girardi Schoen, Senior Director of Environmental Affairs, Pfizer, Inc.
• Peggy Sheppard, Executive and Co-Founder, West Harlem Environmental Action Coalition (WE ACT)
• Daniel Tishman, Chairman and CEO, Tishman Construction Corporation
• Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO, Partnership for New York City
• Robert Yaro, President, Regional Plan Association
• Elizabeth Yeampierre, Executive Director, UPROSE