Yup. Chris’ image is still relevant despite what Sheldon Silver will have you believe.

Turn the dial on your Wayback Machine to April. Back then, the skies were blue, the grass was green and Speaker of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver killed congestion pricing. At the time, Sheldon Silver’s role in the demise of Mayor Bloomberg’s ambitious plan was not up for debate.

Well, someone should remind Mr. Silver of this inconvenient truth. Yesterday, in an interview with the Downtown Express, Silver blamed the MTA for the demise of congestion pricing. This is a stunning revision of recent history.

Streetsblog first reported this audacious piece of news yesterday, and Brad Aaron quoted the vital parts:

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.

This interview by Silver is flat-out absurd. The Downtown Express is paying attention to him right now because, for the first time in over two decades, the incumbent Assemblyman is facing a primary challenger. And that challenger came about largely because Silver allowed congestion pricing to fail. Silver now claims that, when Richard Ravitch issues his report in a few months, “you’ll see this” — the MTA’s financial woes and the fate of congestion pricing — “start to get straightened out.”

Of course, that doesn’t explain why Silver forgot that he let hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding slip through New York’s fingers or how he forgot that his maneuverings insured that congestion pricing wouldn’t even hit the Assembly floor in the first place. That he is now blaming the MTA just shows that Silver is still trying to come up with something, anything, that the public would believe. He can’t quite come out and say that he didn’t believe in the plan. So why not blame an organization many believe to be inept and financially irresponsible? It certainly sounds better that way, reality be damned.

If there were any justice in New York State politics, Silver would lose this primary, and congestion pricing would become a reality. But as this is New York State and we’re talking about New York politics, Silver will probably win, and congestion pricing — and a fully-funded MTA — will remain a pipe dream. Once again, until our politicians wake up to the reality of funding the MTA — we can’t get something for nothing — we’ll be stuck with pandering politicians who are more interested in protecting their incumbency than they are in passing responsible social, environmental and economic policies. It’s just business as usual for Sheldon Silver and New York State.

As Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan rose and fell in inglorious fashion, another congestion pricing plan has lingered on the horizon, not quite dying but not quite getting the attention it deserves.

That plan is, of course, Ted Kheel’s plan to make the subways free while implementing a high congestion fee and delivering all the revenue to the MTA. When I first wrote about Kheel’s plan in January, it generated 20 comments worth of discussion, and the Kheel Plan still stands as something of a Holy Grail for congestion pricing advocates.

On the one hand, this plan solves a lot of the problems inherent in Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC2030 proposal. All of the money from the plan would go toward improving mass transit. If you accept the baseline assumptions inherent in the plan, the proposed fees — $16 for cars and $32 for trucks at all hours — would generate a significant surplus for capital expansion and infrastructure maintenance, and the subways and buses could be free. The extra money generated by the high fees would also allow the NYPD and the MTA to increase police presence to counter fears of unsafe subways if the barrier to entrance — in this case, the fare — is dropped.

When congestion pricing died at the hands of Sheldon Silver and the New York State Assembly Democrats, Ted Kheel vowed to make his plan an issue in the upcoming mayoral race in New York City. Kheel has commissioned Charles Komanoff, the research director and lead writer of the original plan, to refine the original Kheel plan. Yesterday on Streetsblog, he outlined the goals of the second version of the computer model for the Kheel Plan. In his words:

• Time-variable congestion fees: instead of being locked into a straight $16 fee 24-7, we’ll assess higher peak-periods fees along with offsetting, lower fees when traffic is light.
• Time-variable subway fares: we’ll test retaining the fare during the a.m. peak as a possible transition strategy to ease subway crowding and improve system efficiencies (buses will be free 24-7, regardless).
• Closer integration of parking pricing with road pricing.
• Possible differential tolls into the Central Business District by “portal” (New Jersey vs. Long Island vs. Bronx/Westchester).
• Intra-Manhattan congestion charging: according to some GPS developers, it may soon be possible to charge per-mile or per-minute for driving within the CBD; this would open the door to even more revenue and less traffic and further dispel the rap on congestion pricing as a giveaway to Manhattan.

I, for one, am intrigued by these tantalizing glimpses into the future of the Kheel Plan, and I’m glad to see Kheel, 94, pushing to make this plan a central issue during the next election cycle. I also think this plan is the key to the future of congestion pricing in the city. As Komanoff wrote, “In retrospect, it seems clear that Bloomberg’s plan appeared to too many people to be ‘all stick.’ There wasn’t enough direct and concrete payoff, for anybody, to attract wide public support. The Kheel Plan remedies this defect with the very considerable, tangible, obvious ‘carrot’ of free transit.”

This is a plan that clearly benefits every subway and bus rider in the city. With these additions, the plan can be refined further with adjustments in how and when to charge what prices for driving and what fares for mass transit. While drivers and die-hard civil libertarians will not be too keen on using GPS devices to charge by the mile within Manhattan, this part of the proposed Kheel Plan 2 would ensure that the groundbreaking plan would not discriminate against the outer boroughs.

Later today, Komanoff will host a brown bag lunch at the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. He’ll discuss the current model and elaborate on his goals for the future plan.

In the end, this plan — and whatever comes out of Kheel v. 2 in the fall — holds up to scrutiny pretty well. Economists and city planners may challenge the traffic assumptions of models, but the biggest challenge Kheel and his supporters face is in the political arena. If they can turn the Kheel Plan into a populist cause and really drive home the point of free and good public transit in exchange for the congestion pricing, a candidate supporting this plan could garner enough support to win. Otherwise, it will forever remain just another good idea that never saw the light of day.

Chris over at East Village Idiot sums it up best with this Sheldon Silver graphic.

Two hours after the congestion pricing bill seemingly died in conference today without an Assembly floor vote, Assemblywoman Joan Millman from Brooklyn’s 52nd District announced her support of the Mayor’s controversial plan.

“Mr. Speaker, on the bill, I will vote yes on the Congestion Pricing Plan. I will vote yes even though I still have major concerns and questions about the plan itself. I agree too many motorists drive gas guzzling vehicles, polluting our air, causing high rates of asthma,” she said in statement. “My suggestions as well as those of my colleagues deserve a fair hearing. All of us want, need and demand a superior mass transportation system, cleaner air, and a pedestrian friendlier city.”

But it was a message issued in vain. Despite some Eleventh-Hour pleadings by high-ranking government officials, congestion pricing is officially dead. While some Queens politicians are claiming that the plan is elitist, the reality of it is that the elites killed this plan. With money going toward transit and a better environment for our city as part of the payoff, congestion pricing was and always will be a populist plan.

For transit, the Assembly’s failure even to bring the plan to a vote is a major blow to the MTA. The plan was to be a major source of revenue for the MTA’s recently unveiled 2009-2013 $29 billion capital plan. While the early release of the plan allows the MTA to search for other revenue sources well in advance of the scheduled start date, it’s doubtful that the state legislature will actually make good on the billions of dollars it just took away from the MTA.

“Congestion pricing provided a unique opportunity to reduce congestion and dedicate critical funding for the MTA’s capital needs, and we are very disappointed that the proposal has not been approved,” MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said in a statement. “The $354 million in federal funds that have been forfeited would have allowed the MTA to provide new and improved service to under-served areas across the city. The capital program that the MTA released earlier this year relies heavily on funding from pricing to maintain and expand the transportation system that supports the region’s economy. We will continue to work with our funding partners to find the billions needed to make these vital investments.”

Meanwhile, as Streetsblog reported, Michael O’Loughlin at the Campaign for New York’s Future was less sanguine about the impact this move will have on mass transit in New York City. He said:

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

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

Now, the legislature has to confront the MTA capital plan. They have to come up with billions and billions of dollars from somewhere. It doesn’t end here. The issue is engaged and it’s not going away. But this is a bad day for 7.5 million transit riders, that’s for sure.

And that basically says it all. Somehow, some way, someone in New York State government is going to have to find a way to get the MTA billions of dollars for programs they need and construction projects they must build to keep the subway system up to the date and competitive in a global economy. This lack of funding will do far more to harm the New York City economy than any $8 congestion fee plan every would have.

Mayor Bloomberg, with nothing to lose, said it best in a statement released this evening:

“Today is a sad day for New Yorkers and a sad day for New York City. Not only won’t we see the realization of a plan that would have cut traffic, spurred our economy, reduced pollution and improved public health, we will also lose out on nearly $500 million annually for mass transit improvements and $354 million in immediate federal funds…

“If that wasn’t shameful enough, it takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience– on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year. Every New Yorker has a right to know if the person they send to Albany was for or against better transit and cleaner air. People know where I stood, and where members of the City Council stood. They deserved at least that from Albany.”

Congestion pricing is dead. Long live congestion pricing.

Nearly one year to the day after its unveiling, Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan has died. The plan, which would have brought traffic relief and cleaner air to the city as well as more money for public transit, died when upstate politicians opted against bringing Bloomberg’s groundbreaking and controversial plan to an Assembly vote today.

New York City, meanwhile, will lose out on $354 million pledged to the city from the federal government. The funds were to go toward establishing congestion pricing and funding increases in mass transit service but were predicated on a congestion pricing bill’s earning approval by midnight tonight.

Sewell Chan and Nicholas Confessore from The Times’ City Room blog have the story:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s ambitious dream to remake New York City streets with an elaborate plan for congestion pricing died on Tuesday in a private conference room on the third floor of the State Capitol.

It was there that Democratic members of the State Assembly, who control the chamber, held one final meeting to debate the merit’s of Mr. Bloomberg’s plan, ultimately voting—in secret—against the idea. The opposition was so overwhelming, said Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, that he would not hold an open vote of the full Assembly, though many Republicans were supportive of Mr. Bloomberg.

“The congestion pricing bill did not have anywhere near a majority of the Democratic conference, and will not be on the floor of the Assembly,” Mr. Silver said following his meeting with fellow Democrats…

“The word ‘elitist’ came up a number of times,” said Assemblyman Mark S. Weprin, a Queens Democrat, who said his constituents overwhelmingly opposed the measure. “The members who oppose it did so because their constituents opposed it,” Mr. Weprin said. He estimated that opinion among Assembly Democrats ran four to one against the plan.

Of course, anyone who knew anything about the plan could tell Weprin that elitism was the cause of its Assembly defeat and not the root of the plan’s problem. The elites – those rich enough to be driving their cars into Manhattan each day – are the ones who were vehemently opposed to it, and they have the resources to fight it. The people who stood the most to benefit from congestion pricing were the everyday commuters who rely on the subways and buses to get them around town. Elitism has everything to do with the vehement Assembly opposition to congestion pricing.

Meanwhile, attention from those of us advocating for mass transit should turn toward the Assembly. By allowing this plan to die in conference, the Assembly just gave up $354 million for mass transit as well as a dedicated annual revenue source for the MTA. It is incumbent upon our elected officials to make good on their promises from the fare hike debate and deliver more state funds to the MTA. While we may be stuck with people too stubborn to give up their automobiles when they don’t need them, we shouldn’t be left with a subpar mass transit system at the same time.