Albany Embraces Traffic

Mayor Bloomberg's innovative plan to create a congestion pricing zone on private vehicles in NYC, which would have raised millions for public transit and reduced air pollution, (just like the successful program in London) died last night in Albany.

The non-vote after days of closed-door negotiations means the city will forfeit $354 million in federal money for kick-starting the initiative. The Legislature faced a Monday deadline to act on Bloomberg's proposal.

April 7, 2008

STATEMENT BY MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG ON THE FAILURE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO VOTE ON CONGESTION PRICING

"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.

"I will be speaking with Secretary Peters and will express my thanks for her commitment to innovative solutions to real problems facing large cities today. I will also express my deep disappointment that, sadly, even Washington, which most Americans agree is completely dysfunctional, is more willing to try new approaches to longstanding problems than our elected officials in the State Assembly. It takes true leadership and courage to embrace new concepts and ideas and to be willing to try something. Unfortunately, both are lacking in the Assembly today.

"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.

"The idea for congestion pricing didn't start in our Administration and it won't end today. The $354 million we would have received from Washington tomorrow will go to another city in another state. But the problems congestion pricing could have helped solve are only going to get worse. And too many people from more than 170 environmental, labor, public health and business organizations recognize the merits of congestion pricing and hopefully someday, we will have more leaders in the Legislature who recognize it too.

"We will continue to push forward on the other 126 proposals in PlaNYC that will reduce our carbon footprint and green our City. We will move forward on proposals to plant 1 million trees, introduce hybrid taxis and install green roofs on City buildings. Congestion pricing is just one part of our ambitious agenda.

"I want to thank everyone who has worked tirelessly for congestion pricing and I want to acknowledge the courage and leadership that our partners in the City Council, Speaker Quinn, Governor Paterson, former Governor Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco and some in the Legislature have shown by working together to convince their colleagues to support congestion pricing. Together, we will continue to work to build a greener, greater New York City."

----

Shameful performance from Albany. Sadly, many of the obstructionists to progress for NYC were suburban politicians who continue to worship the private automobile, despite $4 gas. This decision ensures a continued crumbling transit system that could give people an alternative to get out of their cars.

Now New Yorkers who struggle for reliable transit and clean air will be able to enjoy lots of this.

And now some other state will get these funds.

•  It Wasn't a Question

  Or whether or not pollution and traffic congestion are good ...  It was a question of who bears the cost.

  by bink on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:51:48 AM PDT

  •  Exactly. n/t

    by boran2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:18:37 AM PDT

    •  anyone who drove in the zone

      would have paid the fee.

      Seems fair to me.

      "Polluter Pays" is the cornerstone of American environmental law.

      by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:53 AM PDT

      •  but only in the zone

        it isn't going to decrease the amount of cars driving, just the amount of cars driving in Manhattan.

        by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:14 AM PDT

        •  Charging cars in Manhattan would have improved

          transit city-wide. Then people can leave their cars at home and the total number of cars in the region would go down.

          That is what has happened in London.

          But for some reason, American just can't believe that people would leave their cars at home.

          Must be the billions spent yearly by the auto industry to buy ads on TV. We are brainwashed.

          by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM PDT

          •  I'm starting to think

            you didn't grow up in NYC.

            We don't have the same system London does. How are people supposed to get into Manhattan if they leave their cars at home. Is a new subway line going to magically appear, is a new bus line going to magically appear? People drive because they don't have access to public transportation where they live. There are no parking facilities near transit hubs, so you know what they do? They park on our streets making parking a nightmare for area residents.

            People have to drive to mass transit, not everyone has a subway down the block.

            by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:40:14 AM PDT

            •  I believe Americans are smart enough to

              create a new transportation system in our cities. Just like the rest of the modern world alread has.

              But sadly, we seem to lack the imagination to begin moving in that direction.

              Quite a bummer.

              I guess we should just get used to an endless wars for oil. Because we seem unwilling to fix the core problem that causes them, auto dependence.

              by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:51:42 AM PDT

•  Pollution-hugging politicians suck.

  We can do better.

  by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM PDT

•  Glad he shot it down (From NJ citizen)

  Instead of hurting commuters from other states maybe NYC should have regulated the people with 2 or 3 cars in their own city. There is no reason in NYC that people need more than one car. Congestion pricing would have passed and took thousands of jobs with it.

  Finally they need to get rid of hacks and make services more efficient so they can upgrade mass transit. You can't tell commuters that we are going to raise the fares to get money for mass transit projects and then a month later have the MTA say "OOPS we still don't have enough money so no new projects for us"

  That makes all citizens skeptical of policies like this

  by jkb246 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:04:43 AM PDT

  •  Meaning Manhattan?

    living in Queens, there is plenty of reason to own more than one car...for example, two people in my household, including myself, work on Long Island.

    by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:09:32 AM PDT

    •  Should be zones.

      Starting in Manhattan and moving to Eastern Queens. Depending on what zone you are in should be taxed to own more than one car in household.  While that might not cover major mass transit projects it would cut down on car traffic.

      by jkb246 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM PDT

      •  Take into account

        neighborhood demographics, density and access to public transportation.

        For example, a place like Maspeth or Glendale is fairly close to Manhattan, but have homes with multiple cars because it's lower density and not close to the subway.

        by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM PDT

        •  In an ideal world

          One or two weeks of the Iraq war would be used to fund an InterIsland subway from Staten Island to Manhattan. High speed rail service would be designed from Eastern Queens to Manhattan etc.

          In the world of NYC politics none of that would be done even if the tolls were 100$ each way. The only reason they are extending the 7 train is to appease conventioneers that were threating to not come to NYC and of course the multi billion dollar development over the rail yards

          by jkb246 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM PDT

          •  And transit funding would go to places

            that really need it.

            ie: bridges to nowhere. High speed rail for Kansas, light rail for North Dakota.

            The reality is that the Blue states need transit funding because thats where the populations are.
            NYC, Chicago,LA, and some Purple states like TX need tons of funding but are too busy building mega roads to that other countries can take our jobs.

            by jkb246 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:44:09 AM PDT

          •  Exactly

            just down the block from me is an abandoned Long Island Rail Road line that has sat there doing nothing since 1962. If utilized, it could provide a quick efficient ride to Midtown via. Central Queens. In the process it would also connect neighborhoods like Astoria, Woodside, Elmhurst and Forest Hills with Rockaway and JFK Airport. From where I live, a train ride to Midtown (on the A train) is about 55 minutes, a bus ride, about an hour, to drive there? about 40 minutes, even during rush hour. My dad works on 53rd and Park and it takes him less time to drive there (which he only does once in a blue moon) than to take the A train to 42nd St and switch to the E...or even if he were to take a bus to Forest Hills and catch the E.

            by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:45:33 AM PDT

•  The truth about this

  is it would not decrease congestion and pollution, it just would decrease it in Manhattan. People would still drive to the outer boroughs (Queens and The Bronx) to catch already overcrowded trains and buses into Manhattan. Aside from the fact it would shift the burden of congestion and pollution from Manhattan to the residential boroughs and suburbs, It would put a severe strain on an already straining system we had been promised improvements on 2 years ago when we passed a bond ballot initiative to give the MTA...where did that money go? Are we supposed to believe once we institute congestion pricing, we're going to get what we've been promised. Color me skeptical.

  by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM PDT

  •  With all the transit improvements this would have

    funded across the entire city, people could have sold their cars and become carfree, just like most folks in Manhattan.

    by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:18:25 AM PDT

    •  yeah, come out to douglaston and

      try to get to flushing without a car, there are about 3 miles apart, 10 by car, i'm guessing about an hour plus on the bus. for that matter, try to go food shopping wihtout a car in sheepshead bay, hope you have a very small family or the number for the local car service . . . its a big city, people who can't afford manhattan pay NYC taxes and supply the work force which can attempt to live between a 6 figure income,

      by mad cow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

      •  30 minutes tops...

        I've done it many times (admittedly only on weekends)--there's a bus that runs along Northern Blvd straight to the #7 train in Flushing. And if you can afford to live in Douglaston, you're not hurting that badly!

        by Menehune on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:55:03 AM PDT

        •  yeah i wish, i live in

          another close part of queens, i just didn't want to blog it, but suffice to say that it takes 40 min., with the wait, from my area to main street via the 28 or the 13.

          by mad cow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:37:19 PM PDT

    •  hahahaha

      sorry, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Have you ever been to Woodlawn?, Throggs Neck?, Bayside? Mill Basin? Howard Beach? Bellerose? The only way to get around is by car. these areas are almost as suburban as Northern New Jersey, Westchester or Nassau County.

      Staten Island?

      by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM PDT

    •  It would take 90 years to do something new in

      NYC. Just look at the new NJ transit tunnel. IT should go right to Grand Central Station, but of course that would cost to much money(One day in Iraq I would imagine). So we are going to be stuck with a dead end station 150 ft below ground that won't accomplish anything at all and cost us 20 billion or so dollars.

      by jkb246 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM PDT

•  Also

  it's important to realize that despite our wonderful system, it is not as intense as London's. New York's mass transit system is designed to get people into and out of Manhattan, not interborough. For that, there are even limited buses to do that.

  In high school, it took me 2 hours to go across Queens by bus when driving took me 15 minutes.

  by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:11:19 AM PDT

  •  This would have provided a funding source

    interborough transit improvements.

    by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:16:06 AM PDT

    •  lol, i have nice interborough bridge to sell you

      i can't believe that any of the funds would have gone to the outer boroughs, i grew up in brooklyn and live in queens, public transit out here is like the forgotten ugly step sister, in many parts of queens and brooklyn people have to take a local bus for more then 30 mins. just to reach a subway, and the rich folks bitch for a second ave line, ha ha ha, don't take away the cars from those poorly served by public transit, lots of folks out here can't physically handle the mass transit an hour plus, standing and changing modes sucks.

      by mad cow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:30 AM PDT

      •  Well then, enjoy your traffic

        Because it's only going to get worse.

        by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:23:31 AM PDT

        •  there's a difference between

          having to commute by car and feeling like your above taking the subway, for many its not a choice, not every one can afford manhattan or to live near a subway. Hop on the 7, see who's on it and if they could afford manhattan and ponder what that trip every day would like if you had a bad back or a knee injury. i'm not against the conguestion tolls, i'm just pissed because i know the outer broughs bound the get the short stick, we always do.

          by mad cow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:28:49 AM PDT

        •  I think our point was

          for us, it's gonna get worse EVEN WITH congestion pricing. Those who drove into the city are still going to drive...to us.

          by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

    •  Didn't we do that

      with a ballot initiative in 2005?

      by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:34:04 AM PDT

    •  I thought the fare increase did that

      See this is the problem. It's not an anti or pro environmental issue it's a classic political issue. The increase in MTA fares was supposed to provide funding for new projects, but woops a few weeks later the MTA puts on hold all new projects, but we aren't returning the fare increase.

      The public hates that.

      by jkb246 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:02 AM PDT

•  The truth of the matter is that it

  was Shelly Silver and Silver alone who killed this plan,  

  by Suburban Blue on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:12:24 AM PDT

  •  I doubt it would have passed

    all our assemblyman here in Queens were vehemently opposed...all are Democrats...the constituencies they represent also strongly opposed this...well, except maybe Astoria.

    by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:13:42 AM PDT

•  Next Up for Albany: $17 Billion Transit Deficit

  The Assembly still has to come up with a plan to deal with a $17 billion transit deficit in a $29 billion capital plan.

  Look forward to seeing how they handle that now that they have turned their backs on this completely reasonable (polluter pays) solution.

  by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM PDT

•  5 words.

  Sheldon Silver has to go.

  by nupstateny on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:01 AM PDT

•  Bruno and Bloomberg to Blame

  The truth is, Bloomberg gave Bruno 500 million dollars to help his doomed battle to hold onto the State Senate.  Then Bruno was put in charge of ramming congestion pricing through Albany.

  It didn't work.  I wonder why?

  /snark

  Now can Bloomberg please re-visit the question of amendments (he wouldn't allow any at all)  and get the citizens of NYC a plan that really works for everybody?

  by Manhattan Dan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:27:29 AM PDT

•  Obama had backed this plan

  via [WNYC radio reporter] Dan Blumberg:

  Senator Barack Obama: I think Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal for congestion pricing is a thoughtful and innovative approach to the problem.

  I think Obama knows a thing or two about environmental justice.

  by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:07 AM PDT

  •  Yes, we know

    Clinton supporters are making hay of it in hope to hurt him in Queens

    by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:37:33 AM PDT

•  I'm amazed by the response here

  I thought most Democrats cared about protecting the environment.

  But I guess we will only choose to tax pollution and build a modern transit system when our car keys are "pried from cold dead hands."

  Sad state of affairs, that.

  by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:43:57 AM PDT

  •  yes but this wasn't doing that

    It was putting more money in the city coffers to hand out to corrupt folks.

    Sorry GreenDem.

    Now I would love to find out what President's Obama and Clinton would do when they take office

    by jkb246 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:46:09 AM PDT

  •  I'm all for protecting the environment

    this doesn't do it...it doesn't stop congestion, traffic and pollution, it just moves it to another part of the city.

    We can do a lot more for the environment pushing for alternative fuels, better emissions, because the truth is people aren't going to give up their cars, because most people just can't.

    I live in New York City and I can't give up my car...that said, I don't use it when I'm traveling to Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn, because I'm lucky enough to have the A train down the block, but I do if I'm going across Queens, to The Bronx or to work on Long Island.

    by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM PDT

    •  "No we can't"

      Look at what's happened in other cities that have enacted congestion pricing, like London: traffic declined not just within the pricing zone, but it DECLINED outside the zone as well. Traffic in Downtown Brooklyn would have been lessened by this plan.

      Congestion pricing having been killed by Shelly, North-central Brooklyn will fail to enjoy a 22.1% reduction in severe traffic jams, 33 more buses on the B41 line, or more capacity on the C line. It will likely lose the planned BRT on Nostrand Avenue and upgraded PA systems on stations on the G line. But that's just one part of Brooklyn, the plans for the whole city were substantial and progressive. The improvement in air quality (particularly for the young and poor) would have SAVED LIVES.

      "most people just can't [give up their cars]"
      A frightening judgment. $4 a gallon gas this summer will be fun, then.

      It's time for people like nrafter to realize that you are not "all for protecting the environment." If you fail to challenge the fundamentally unsustainable auto-centric America we've built, you're a part of the problem.

      

      by get ready v2 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:09:48 AM PDT

•  "people aren't going to give up their cars"

  Oh, when gas is $10 a gallon, people will give up their cars.

  But sadly, there won't be any decent new transit options, because we chose to miss opportunities like this one.

  So don't blame Republicans for lack of environmental progress in America.

  The enemy it seems, is ourselves and our habits.

  by greendem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:57:51 AM PDT

  •  We've given the MTA

    numerous chances to show us they can be innovative with new transit options. We've had fare hikes and bond initiatives and now they want MORE money? This is about people having no faith in the MTA's ability to spend the money it gets wisely. There wouldn't be any new transit options anyway. There will be no new subway lines built in Queens, no light rails, no new forms of transportation. I haven't seen any plans outside of Manhattan for new lines. I'm sorry, but Bloomberg did not sell me on this plan. He did not show how the money we get from the Feds will go to benefit the outer boroughs.

    by nrafter530 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:18:37 AM PDT

    •  You didn't read the plan

      Like virtually every opponent of congestion pricing, you obviously didn't read the MTA's Capital Plan that listed off improvements that would be funded by congestion pricing. This included adding trains on subway lines across the 5 boroughs (yes, even replacing the cars on the Staten Island RR), adding Bus Rapid Transit to poorly-serviced areas of Queens, and expanding and adding express bus service from Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. Virtually ALL of the improvements recommended were in the outer boroughs.

      The campaign of misinformation - or simply the unwillingness for people to read up on the plan before they just cast it off as a regressive tax on the middle class - was absolutely ridiculous through this whole process.

      by theantibush on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:57:45 PM PDT

•  Congestion Pricing

  Well, I'm posting here because the person who moderates the listserve about transportation in my city won't let me post about the "twin" of all transit reform efforts -- affordable housing.  I certainly support congestion pricing and carbon taxes, but the reality is that housing is so expensive in the inner cities where we want people to live that they are forced to live in the energy-intensive suburbs.  Even my New Jersey aunt whose late husband was a doctor didn't think they could relocate to New York after he retired because of the cost of living.

  Which means that we need to do something to drive down property costs -- or SOMETHING -- so that we get more affordable and livable housing created where people leave the smallest environmental footprint.

  Green Green

  by greengreen on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:53:58 PM PDT