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.

Stop the presses: I agree with John Liu.

As frequent readers of Second Ave. Sagas will know, I don’t have a very high opinion of John Liu. I think his statements about the MTA often show a misguided sense of direction from the man in charge of the City Council’s transportation committee. And while this isn’t the first time I’ve agreed with Liu — that first momentous occasion came just a few weeks ago, as commenter Julia noted — this time, he’s really hit the nail on the head with his comments relating to congestion pricing and the future of New York City’s public transit system.

A week ago, in the Daily News Liu penned a piece on the concept of a transit lockbox. He laid out a convincing argument for the congestion fee provided that all funds go to a transit lockbox so that the State or City cannot later decide to take the money and use it for other projects. Too many times in New York history have state and city bodies re-appropriated transit funds to the detriment of the MTA and the city’s public transit network. Liu’s solution would, in effect, fix part of that problem.

Liu’s plan notes too that this money would only be part of the funds given to the MTA from New York’s governing bodies. Take a look:

First and foremost, we must turn vague commitments of transit improvements into verifiable and protected investments for transit service so that New Yorkers with the worst transit service are prioritized in congestion pricing-funded improvements.

By “protected,” I mean the money must be dedicated solely to transit – no ifs, ands or buts. Legislation must mandate a “lockbox” that cannot be tampered with. The proceeds must go to capital improvements, not the operating budget, and they must be immune from poaching by future legislative bodies.

Politicians often make such promises: The lottery money will go to education, the smoking funds will go toward health care. This time, the pledge must be ironclad.

Second, the money must be additive in terms of overall transportation funding, not an excuse for future governors, mayors and legislators to cut MTA funding by an amount equal to congestion pricing proceeds.

In short, Liu absolutely hits the nail on the head with this one. For the congestion fee to work, the MTA must reap the benefits, and the money should come on top of other funds that the MTA should receive from the State and City.

Imagine a New York City with the congestion pricing. The streets are less crowded, and it’s generally more pleasant to work around town. Cars aren’t stuck in gridlock for miles, and drivers aren’t honking when the car in front of them waits half a beat to speed through a green light.

With all of the congestion fee money going to transit, the picture looks even brighter. With fewer cars on the road, the MTA and the Department of Transportation can work to give the city dedicated bus rapid transit lanes it so deserves. The MTA could beef up service and spend more money renovating stations in less time. We can even dream of capital construction projects finding their way to completion.

The way to get there — the way to achieve this transit dream — is through congestion pricing. And congestion pricing would work only with a secure lockbox. Councilman Liu is spot on. Now, as we sit one week out from a fare hike, everyone else involved has to make this new transit revenue source happen.

The MTA is banking its financial future on some form of congestion fee revenue, and MTA CEO and Executive Director Elliot “Lee” Sander began his congestion fee push with a stridently pro-congestion fee op-ed in Metro. It throws the weight of a very powerful MTA head behind a plan that is no sure thing.

In a short, concise and effective piece, Sander gets right to the heart of the matter:

Revenues generated by congestion pricing — hundreds of millions of dollars each year — would be used to provide a steady and predictable revenue stream to the MTA to make the capital investments needed to improve service throughout our system.

The new revenue is critical to the ambitious capital plan that we will present to Albany in March. The MTA hopes to move ahead with big expansion projects while investing in new technologies to improve existing service. For subway riders, that means more trains and less waiting. But congestion pricing would do even more for bus riders. It would allow us to purchase new buses to increase frequency on many routes, and to create new bus routes throughout the city.

Even better, it would speed trips for bus riders and make each bus less expensive to operate.

Furthermore, Sander notes, disarming critics, the increase in subway ridership expected due to the congestion fee is but a small percentage of the current ridership totals. With the added revenue, the MTA would be more than able to keep up with the increased demand.

Sander closes with a point that a lot of activists have been pushing lately. MTA ridership, he writes, “is projected to grow by another 20 percent by 2030 as the city is expected to grow by a million people and the region by 3 million. In order for the MTA to handle all those new riders, we must have robust funding streams in place, like the one provided by congestion pricing.”

For those of us supporting a congestion fee, Zero Hour is heading our way. With the panel set to issue a series of recommendations soon, the future of transportation and air quality in the New York area will soon come into view. But for the subways, this issue of funding should transcend congestion fee revenue. As I noted yesterday, the city and state should guarantee dedicated funding for the MTA outside of any money the MTA may take in from the congestion fee. The MTA really is that important to the economic well-being of New York State to warrant such an investment, and while the congestion fee should be implemented, the MTA’s future should not hinge on such a politically volatile proposal.

Meanwhile, it is refreshing and exciting to see Lee Sander come out in favor of a congestion fee. But to see his voice limited to the low-circulation Metro dampens some of that enthusiasm. Maybe next time, the important voices will find their way to the pages of the city’s more influential newspapers.

It’s been a while since we’ve checked in on Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed congestion fee. As the various panels have examined the plan and proposed lesser alternatives, news has been slow. Last week, however, we heard that the plan enjoys greater public support if they money goes toward improving mass transit. Today, the news is worse.

According to two reports — one in the Post and one in the Daily News — the money from the congestion fee may not go to transit. I don’t think this guy is going to be too happy to hear this one.

Adam Lisberg from the News’ City Hall Bureau has more:

Drivers may soon be forced to pay up to $8 to drive into Manhattan – but there’s no way to ensure the money would go for mass transit as promised, the head of the City Council’s Finance Committee said Sunday.

“There is no guarantee that any of that money would be specifically earmarked,” said David Weprin, who represents a part of eastern Queens with poor subway access. “We shouldn’t be taxing the middle class if it’s not going to make a difference…”

Mayor Bloomberg and the MTA say the money should be used for bus and subway improvements that would get more drivers out of their cars and onto mass transit. But Weprin and former Councilman Walter McCaffrey fear government could instead use that money to offset other transit funding, or even to pay for projects upstate.

This statement by Weprin is not good, to say the least. First, without beating around the bush, it would be a tragedy if Albany used New York City’s congestion fee revenue to pay for upstate projects or use it to offset transit funding. I wouldn’t put past our upstate representatives who seem to have little love for this tiny geographical sliver of the state that is responsible for nearly the entire New York economy.

But more important is the money. Any money the city draws in from the congestion fee should, after paying for congestion enforcement efforts, go toward improving mass transit. If the congestion fee is implemented, a good number of drivers will eschew their cars for the cheaper confines of the subway and Bus Rapid Transit lanes that should be in place. But for the MTA’s various systems to handle the increased volume, they will need increased funding. That money should come from Albany and the congestion fee. It should not come only from the congestion fee with Albany’s thinking that they can slouch off on their financial contributions.

Right now, 60 percent of New Yorkers would support congestion pricing if the money goes to mass transit. The MTA and the mayor both expect those funds to go to mass transit, but Albany could still throw a wrench into their plans. Hopefully, our state representatives won’t do that. With Albany, however, all bets are off, and the congestion fee plan and mass transit upgrades are facing yet another hurdle in the state capital.