One of the staunch opponents of congestion pricing — Brooklyn Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries — would like to see the MTA increase service along the G train, and Streetsblog takes him to task for his hypocrisy. G train service upgrades, you see, were part of the planned service increases the MTA was going to institute this year when congestion pricing passed. But due to the efforts of Jeffries and others of his ilk, congestion pricing failed and the service upgrades have been shelved for now. Jeffries had his chance and he went the other way. Now he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. [Streetsblog]
Lucky Chicago. They aren’t afraid of change and progress, and now the Windy City is getting what should be ours if it hadn’t been for Sheldon Silver and his crony of cowardly representatives.
When New York decided not to adopt congestion pricing, the City forfeited around $354 million that would have gone toward anti-congestion measures as part of the new National Strategy to Reduce Congestion. Since our wonderful leaders don’t seem too concerned with reducing congestion, the feds instead decided to dole out $153 million to Chicago. That city will implement a bus rapid transit system with dedicated lanes and ramped-up enforcement as well as variable-rate parking meters.
Los Angeles — the king of congestion — will receive over $200 million that will go toward implementing a tolling system designed to encourage car-pooling and other high-occupancy vehicle commuting. I prefer Chicago’s plan, but the one in Los Angeles is not without merit.
Catrin Einhorn of The Times has the story:
In Chicago, officials said Tuesday that they planned to use $153 million for projects like creating the first 10 miles of lanes dedicated to faster buses that make fewer stops and set off sensors that lengthen green traffic lights and shorten red ones. To discourage driving downtown, meters and parking lots there would charge more during peak traffic times.
In Los Angeles, which would receive $213 million, officials said high-occupancy vehicle lanes would be converted to toll lanes. Cars with three or more people would be exempt from paying. The federal money would also finance bus service in the new toll lanes.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, through a spokesman, applauded the efforts of both cities.
“While it’s sad that Washington, which most Americans agree is completely dysfunctional, is more willing to try new approaches to long-standing problems than Albany is,” Mr. Bloomberg’s press secretary, Stu Loeser, said, “we’re glad other places aren’t as allergic to innovation.”
Mayor Bloomberg is clearly still smarting from the defeat of his groundbreaking (in the U.S., at least) congestion pricing plan. He’s not the only one. “We’re disappointed that New York didn’t get it,” Tyler D. Duvall, acting under secretary for policy for the Department of Transportation, said to The Times, “but we’re extremely happy to have the opportunity to work with L.A. and Chicago.”
For New York, the blow stings a bit. Chicago, in particular, is adopting measures that New York really needs and should have. At a time when many are noting that our own BRT system may be delayed a few years, Chicago’s gain is New York’s loss.
We could have had BRT money; we could have had funds for traffic reduction programs and public transit expansion. Instead, we have risk-averse politicians who wouldn’t even put the plan up for a floor vote, and we get to sit back at Chicago enjoys the money that could have been ours. That’s some example to set as a global city in 2008.
These bridges won’t be free for much longer if DOT has its way. (Photo by flickr user SheepGuardingLama)
While those of us in the pro-congestion pricing camp were busy slamming Sheldon Silver and mourning the death of Mayor Bloomberg’s radical and potentially revolutionary congestion pricing plan, the New York City Department of Transportation had other plans.
Speaking on Friday at the Regional Plan Association’s annual conference, DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan let slip that congestion pricing in name may be dead, but the ideas and certain proposals are far from dead. “I really don’t think that we should be in the business right now of eulogizing congestion pricing. The way I prefer to think about it,” she said, “is that perhaps we are in little more of a hibernation mode.”
DOT, you see, is trying to return to an idea dropped during the build-up to congestion pricing: tolls over the East River bridges. Furthermore, these tolls could potentially be used to fund the MTA’s capital campaign and its currently-projected multi-billion-dollar funding gap. Pete Donohue from the Daily News has more:
“At the end of the day, the failure on congestion pricing that occurred last month was just a setback,” said a fellow panelist, former Deputy Mayor Marc Shaw. “I think it will be reconsidered in the near future.”
He predicted congestion pricing would come back in a somewhat different and “purer” form: tolls at the East River bridges and across 60th St.
Shaw chaired a commission that recommended charging $8 to drive below 60th St. It largely would have affected drivers who do not currently pay to enter lower Manhattan because they use free East River bridges. The goals included reducing traffic and generating funds to improve the mass transit system.
Furthermore, Donohue notes, the new MTA commission on funding led by former MTA head Richard Ravitch will consider both the East River tolls and congestion pricing plans as sources of revenue for the beleaguered transportation authority.
I am all in favor of tolling the East River bridges. Right now, four bridges — Brooklyn, Manahttan, Williamsburg, Queensboro — feed into Manhattan south of 60th street for free. Users of these bridges have myriad public transportation options, and yet these drivers still get a free ride into and out of the city. If tolling these bridges would provide the MTA with funds while reducing congestion and automobile use, DOT should make it happen. The city and its public transit advocates could use a big win, and it’s comforting to see DOT keeping this hope alive.
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.
In a story bound to pick up speed over the weekend, the tireless Elizabeth Benjamin at the Daily News’ The Daily Politics blog reports that MTA board members are threatening more fare hikes if congestion pricing isn’t approved. That leaves with one question: Is the MTA board engaging in some political chicanery or are this fair city’s subway riders up a fare hike creek without a paddle if congestion pricing fails this weekend?
Benjamin reports that she got a call from an anonymous MTA board member who levied this fare hike threat:
In a move that seemed designed to scare the bejeezus out of state lawmakers, an MTA source called this morning to insist the authority is actively “looking at different scenarios” to fund its five-year capital plan if the Legislature doesn’t pass congestion pricing – including the possibility of yet another fare hike.
“If they don’t get a new revenue source out of Albany, either congestion pricing or some other new tax, they’re going to have to get the money somehow,” the source said. “Their current finances are so soft they can’t do the $30 million (worth of service improvements) they promised. How are they going to pay the debt service on the next capital plan?”
When pressed, MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin danced around the issue a little bit. “A number of things have been looked at, but no specific fare numbers are being run,” Soffin said to the Daily News reporter. “But, if the capital plan isn’t funded, we have to find ways to fund it, and we have limited choices.”
For the MTA, the fiscal news really is this bad. Just a 10 days after the MTA had to indefinitely postpone service upgrades that should have come our way after the fare hike, Benjamin notes that the MTA’s finances are looking even shakier:
MTA revenues from four taxes on real estate transactions dropped in March far below what the authority’s budget projected. The budget anticipated a $47 million drop but those revenues fell $79 million in March.
If that trend continues the MTA is in deeper financial trouble. It already is projecting a $200 million deficit for next year and much larger deficits in subsequent years, largely because of rising payments for debt racked up because of inadequate funding during the Pataki years.
The unspoken bad news here is that even with congestion pricing, the MTA will still be facing a budget deficit. For the umpteenth year in a row, Albany is going to scale back its fiscal contributions from the originally-promised levels, and the MTA cannot just print money itself. Another fare hike next year seems inevitable.
Yet again, we’ll be faced with the trade-off: Do we want a subway system that’s cheap — some might say too cheap — and bad service or are we willing to shoulder yet another fare hike to maintain or improve service levels? No matter the answer to that question, the debate is a long way off. Meanwhile, if Albany isn’t going to kick back state funds for the MTA, the least they could this weekend is acknowledge the city’s home rule message and pass congestion pricing. The money will be a dedicated revenue stream for the MTA, and the authority should could use it.
Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign is something of a subway guru. He is a tireless advocate for riders’ rights and for all things public transit in New York City. When he talks, rail watchers listen.
Yesterday, Russianoff talked and in a big way. In a piece in The Post, not normally a big congestion pricing supporter, Russianoff outlined his support for and belief in a transit lockbox for the revenues from congestion pricing. Usually historical arguments based on the way the MTA has been funded over the last 40 years, Russianoff lays out a compelling case for the security of a lockbox. While many MTA watchers on this blog and elsewhere have been skeptical of the promise that all congestion pricing revenue would go toward transit improvements, Russianoff’s pieces assuages many of those fears.
He writes:
Some still doubt the lockbox will work. But dedicated funds for transit actually have a very good track record of getting the cash where it’s supposed to go.
The MTA has been funded by several such revenue streams (via portions of the corporate-franchise, mortgage-recording, real-property and sales taxes, among others) since the early ’80s, providing tens of billions to run our subways, buses and commuter rail. And the dedicated funds have never been raided to balance the state’s budget or fund projects unrelated to transit.
Indeed, one such fund goes back to the MTA’s birth: Back in 1968, the agency was granted the surplus from the tolls on MTA bridges and tunnels. The funds support both daily operations and the rebuilding of the system.
This year, it’s set to get $334 million from facilities such as the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown tunnels and the Triborough Bridge. In 40 years, the bridge and tunnel surpluses have never been taken and used for non-transit purposes.
Russianoff ends by urging the public and its elected representatives to avoid voting against congestion pricing because of sketpicism over the funds. If the money is earmarked for the MTA, then, as history shows, it will be delivered to the MTA no ifs, ands or buts about it.
Indirectly, then, Russianoff’s piece brings us to another conclusion: The MTA has suffered financially not because they have been denied funds from their dedicated revenue sources but because state and city institutions have not come through with fiscal contributions to the transit authority. For decades, public officials have promised the MTA money to cover budget gaps when dedicated revenue streams can’t cover everything, and for decades, public officials have reneged on those promises. For the most recent example of this, we need look no further than Monday when news came that Albany may not deliver all that was once promised.
As Russianoff urges, New Yorkers need to hold their public officials responsible for this oversight. Too long have our elected representatives siphoned money away from the MTA. If we care about transit, we should urge these officials to fund the MTA. Enough with the wasteful projects and pork spending. Give this city — the economic engine of New York State — the funds it needs to run a state-of-the-art 21st century transit network. It all starts with congestion pricing, but it ends with money that far exceeds those contributions.
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.
Finally, some good news for New York’s battered and beleaguered transportation network: The City Council has approved congestion pricing. The plan now heads to the state legislature which should heed New York’s home-rule decision. I’ll have more on this and its potential impact on transit later on tonight.
Another financial milestone for the MTA is fast approaching. At 3:30 p.m. this afteroon, the City Council will hold a vote on the revised congestion pricing plan. While, as City Room’s Sewell Chan notes, the State Legislature will ultimately approve or vote down the plan, the Council has to approve the plan before the Legislature can vote. This morning, The Times looked people who drive when they don’t have to. Those are the folks who should be paying the fee. More as this story develops. After a bad financial week, the MTA could really use a congestion pricing win today. [City Room]