In a close vote late Monday evening, the City Council sent a strong home-rule message to Albany when it passed Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal. The Council vote now sends the plan up to the State Legislature for ultimate approval.

Diane Cardwell of The Times has more on the vote and what it means for the revolutionary plan’s future:

Approving the proposal, Ms. Quinn said, would send a message to the Legislature that the “people who were elected to represent the New Yorkers who live in our five boroughs are sick and tired of our streets being clogged with traffic, we’re sick and tired of the children who live in our city literally having to fight to be able to breathe, and that we see congestion pricing as a solution to this problem.”

But the ultimate fate of the proposal now resides in Albany, where the intentions of lawmakers whose approval is needed remained unclear. Gov. David A. Paterson and the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, have expressed their support. But Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who has derailed Mr. Bloomberg’s ambitions in the past, remained noncommittal, telling members of the Democratic conference on Sunday night that he would not take the issue up until the state budget was completed.

Meanwhile, the form of congestion pricing passed by the City Council looks a bit different than Mayor Bloomberg’s original plan. Gone are the boundaries at 86th St. Instead, congestion pricing will go into effect south of 60th St. At the last minute, other key changes which probably saved the plan were put in place by the Senate majority. Elizabeth Benjamin summarized those changes. They address many of the concerns the congestion pricing critics had:

- Requires the Port Authority of NY/NJ to contribute $1 billion to the 5-year MTA capital plan. If the authority fails to make this payment, then the amount of the toll offset for commuters who use the Hudson River crossings will be reduced. (This is to address complaints that NJ communters weren’t paying their fair share in the original plan).

- This eligible to receive an earned income tax credit would have congestion pricing fees reimbursed over the amount of the monthly Metrocard. (This is to address complaints about the lack of an exemption for poor people).

- Increases the time to pay fines for non-EZPass drivers to 96 hours (four days) prior to incurring a penalty and provides three separate notices to be sent to a driver prior to the issuance of a violation. (To create a fairer fine structure).

- Strengthens language regarding prevailing wage to include all public works performed by the MTA with congestion pricing funds. (To assuage concerns of organized labor union and their allies).

- Expands the handicapped license plate exemption to include those with a NYC tag and an EZPass.

For the MTA, that golden carrot of funds is one step closer, and it couldn’t have come at a better time. After facing lower-than-expected revenues and the threat of less money from Albany, the MTA needed a win, and they have received at least a provisional win. The money from the congestion pricing plan will go to the MTA, and the MTA will be able to fund more of its capital campaign. That’s a win.

Pricing opponents are sure to be out in full force tomorrow, but this is a good plan for New York. It’s a good plan for the future of our region and for the future of our transportation network. It’s one step closer to reality, and that is good news indeed.

When the Eliot Spitzer scandal hit on Monday afternoon, my thoughts turned to congestion pricing. Slowly gaining momentum with New Yorkers but losing the support of key politicians, the congestion pricing plan was going to require a monumental negotiation in Albany. With this scandal, I fear it is all but dead, and with it, we lose a chance to significantly improve both the environment and mass transit in New York City.

Recently, it seemed, the tide had been turning in favor of the congestion pricing plan. With Elliot Sander’s State of the MTA speech last week, improved mass transit partially funded by congestion pricing revenues took center stage. His plan showed a New York with better transit options and fewer cars.

Then, last week, The Times wrote a stridently pro-congestion pricing editorial:

New York riders pay a considerably higher share of the cost of mass transit than riders in other cities. Fares for buses, subways and commuter rails increased again this week to help pay the M.T.A.’s operating costs. It is time for New York drivers to help carry the burden. Congestion pricing fees can produce significant and recurring new money for mass transit’s capital expenses.

Congestion pricing, of course, has many other virtues. New Yorkers would enjoy the health and economic benefits of less gridlock and tailpipe emissions — and faster commutes. Getting money to help fix mass transit is yet another reason why the City Council and state lawmakers should approve congestion pricing before the end of the month — when a deadline to receive more than $350 million in federal funds expires.

I’ve said it before myself, and I continue to agree with The Times. The city needs congestion pricing badly.

Meanwhile, an amNew York story published today notes that nearly two-thirds of bus commuters approve of the congestion pricing plan. “Bus riders are really the unsung winners of congestion pricing. They win with faster, more reliable buses,” Transportation Alternative’s Wiley Norvell said.

The opposition however is gaining strength too. As Gotham Gazette notes, the City Council is now leaning 20-12 against congestion pricing. And here I thought elected officials were supposed to represent the desires of their constituents.

All of these political machinations bring us back to Gov. Spitzer, the man who could have brokered a deal for the congestion pricing plan. As Streetsblog commenter momos aptly noted, Albany will now be consumed with this scandal and the ensuing fallout. In fact, we could find ourselves with a new governor this week.

“Both the budget and congestion pricing had to be negotiated by the end of the month,” momos wrote. “The negotiating environment was bad enough. Now it’s downright destroyed. Spitzer is weakened if not replaced entirely, while the uproar in Albany will give the Assembly cover to do as it will. If there were several months for things to settle it would be difficult enough; with critical deadlines in 3 weeks, forget it. This is so tragic. Congestion pricing dies not in a debate over its merits but in the ashes of a Governorship imploding from a sex scandal.”

And that about sums it up.

As congestion pricing goes, however, all is not lost. The MTA can still pressure the legislature to make good on its promises of funding that emerged during the fare hike hearings. Now more than ever in fact, the state and city should be willing to pony up other funds to ensure the financial health of the MTA. While congestion pricing is seemingly on its last legs, the MTA need not be at all.