Now That Congestion Pricing Is Dead, What Happens Next?

The big news last week from Albany was that key legislators (ahem, Sheldon Silver) decided that the Assembly would not even bother voting on the congestion pricing. That effectively killed it without anyone having to be accountable to their constituents for voting either way for the controversial bill. It would have been a start to (even if somewhat flawed) fixing our region's gridlock that so desperately needs help. Well Federal Transportation Administration head James Simpson came up to NYC to talk about the problem and where to go from here.

From The NY Daily News:

Speaking in Manhattan this morning, Federal Transit Administration chief James Simpson took the Assembly to task for its decision last week not to act on Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan -- calling it "very disappointing as well as short-sighted."

Apparently some lawmakers view congestion pricing as an “elitist” approach to addressing a problem that has reached crisis proportions, and is only expected to get worse as time passes.

Well, there is nothing “elitist” about miles of gridlock at rush hour. It affects virtually everyone – commuters, truck drivers, taxi drivers, buses, and even straphangers crammed onto the subway. It affects the air we breathe. It affects this region’s ability to provide the mobility that’s so vital to keeping New York a workable, livable community. And it affects our productivity and our quality of life.

Simpson, addressing the New York Building Congress and Construction Industry breakfast, said the feds remain committed to helping fund major N.Y.C. projects, such as improving East Side access and building the Second Ave. subway, but raised concerns about the financing:

First, only a limited number of firms have the capacity required to bid and construct these projects. That raises concerns for us about limited competition, which has implications for how jobs are priced.

Second, we’re concerned about how difficult it is to create accurate cost and performance estimates for these complicated, multi-year transit projects, given the continued escalation of commodity prices. The risk of under-estimating costs -- and incurring additional debt obligations -- is very real.

Basically what he is saying is that New York should have passed congestion pricing to back up the spending from the transportation fuel tax fund. There are still a ton of projects that need to be completed and the cost of these are only going to go up because construction prices continue to skyrocket thanks to the unabated commodities market in addition to the huge building boom that continues throughout the country. He then chides dissenters by talking about the congestion pricing successes in Europe and imagines what the revenue streams would be to build mass transit if we had congestion pricing in our top 100 cities.

So pretty much, he says were screwed unless we change our ways. Um, Mr. Simpson.....duh.

LA And NYC Have Similar Congestion Problems, Face Different Roadblocks To Change

Yesterday New Yorkers lost out on a chance to improve their mass transit system when the congestion pricing debate was stifled in the Assembly up in Albany. Now we have a $17 billion dollar shortfall in our MTA capitol plan. On the upside, at least we have an expansive transit system, unlike our cosmopolitan neighbor across the country, where Los Angelenos depend on clogged streets and myriad freeways to get to and fro.

California Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) came up with an idea to add a tax for motorists to approve and then subsequently pay in order to increase the necessary cash for a budget that can begin to get a handle on Los Angeles's ridiculous congestion problems. However, it isn't their state government that is the biggest obstacle as of yet, it is some of the opinions in the local papers that are surprisingly thickheaded.

From The Orange County Register:

Congested traffic is easily verifiable. If it went away tomorrow, politicians would be unable to persuade voters to tax themselves to fix it.

Global warming at best amounts to less than a degree of temperature increase during the past century. If the recent several-year cooling trend is an indication, global warming may be going away. But because the only "proof" of long-term catastrophic consequences lies in contrived computer models, politicians like Mr. Feuer can insist even as temperatures decline that doomsday still lies ahead unless people tax themselves to fix the problem.

Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be.

Climate has changed as long as the Earth has spun on its axis. It's been considerably warmer in recent centuries than today, and during those periods humanity simply adapted, indeed, flourished with fewer cold-weather deaths and more abundant crops.

But facts don't deter schemes like Mr. Feuer's to raise $400 million in additional taxes to pay for already funded transit projects. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority would have to place the issue on the ballot if AB2558 becomes law, and probably would do so because the agency would reap the bounty.

Um, it looks like facts do not deter the OC Register as well. They are one of the few and far between that still believe there is no connection between cars (that create pollution) and the environment (that suffers from pollution) among other vehicles (pun intended) of pollution into the atmosphere.

Now that of course is the OC Register, comparable to a conservative paper here in NYC. Unfortunately there are others with similar demented thinking, as Streetsblog LA points out.

From Streetsblog LA:

Slightly closer to home than San Bernadino, the Santa Monica Daily Breeze also seems offended that Assemblyman Mike Feuer would make a link between global warming, air pollution and congestion and that he would actually try to do something about it.

Here's a novel way to combat global warming: Get Los Angeles County drivers to pay a new tax to combat traffic jams.

Confused? That would be the only reason to vote for Assembly Bill 2558. If the author, L.A. Democrat Mike Feuer, were serious about dealing with either issue he'd come up with a better plan than lumping them together.

Feuer was quoted in the Orange County Register as saying the people in the Los Angeles region have had it when it comes to traffic and air quality. Well, yes. But now he's talking about three problems: global climate, local traffic and air pollution.

The Breeze is acting like there's no relationship between these three things, even though it's pretty well documented that climate change is caused in part by the air pollution created by cars. I think their point is that it will take more than just LA to reverse climate change, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything at all. That's the kind of thinking one would expect from the Washington Times, not a newspaper in Los Angeles.

Unfortunately it is a paper in Los Angeles and one among at least a few. And in Santa Monica, geez, I expected better from a small local paper in that neighborhood. Why is it that we have so much trouble trying to fix the problems we create for the environment (and inherently ourselves)? People need to wake up and talk back to boneheaded newspapers like these and replace stalwarts in our government (like Shelly Silver). True change comes from within, not vestiges of the past like certain editorials and politicians.

Congestion Pricing May Be Dead, But Our Problems Live On

Thanks to the Assembly Democrats, congestion pricing died a slow death yesterday and boy oh boy did that make the Mayor mad. He heaped tons of scorn on the Assembly and called them all sorts of names. Meanwhile the retort was that because of the Mayor's "high-handed" they decided not to go with him on this one. As The Albany Project points out, there were all sorts of winners and losers on this one, but the most important was New York City and the people that live here and rely on mass transit. Due to political games, we are now $17 billion in the hole for the MTA Capital budget. Where will this money come from? Most likely nowhere.

Bloomberg had his faults on the issue for sure, but most importantly Albany did not like the way he approached them and because of that, they punished all of us for it. That goes especially for Speaker Sheldon Silver. He certainly has his history of playing games with the Mayor and now we lose out even more than that West side stadium deal a few years back, despite those that say it isn't personal. Perhaps not, but it was personal to the millions that need a better funded mass transit system as our city continues to grow.

Now the Mayor is lame duck and congestion pricing advocates are pissed at Speaker Silver. While Bloomberg is finished with his term in less than two years from now, Silver can keep going on indefinitely as long as he keeps getting re-elected. Now that is something we can change. Paul Newell and Luke Henry are running against the shady Silver in the primary this fall and if you want to see a change in Albany, helping to get either into Silver's seat would go a long way to cleaning up that stench in the State House. Both men denounced Silver's tactics in regard to the congestion pricing debacle.

The End Of The Tollbooth?

The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey is thinking of getting rid of manned tollbooths once and for all. The result would be a system where an E-ZPass is a must in order to use the bridges and tunnels of the tri-state area that have tolls. Most drivers that come into the city have E-ZPass already, roughly 75 to 80 percent of all in-bound traffic, so is it really a big deal to get rid of the old system?

The pros of the change are vast. It reduces idling time at the entrances of the bridges and tunnels so that is good for the environment. Traffic flow would increase, as the E-ZPass accomodates 1400 cars and regular tollbooths only take up to 400 cars an hour. Basically it would help NYC to move faster and more efficiently.

The downturns would be to those that are visiting the area and do not have nor know what an E-ZPass is. Coming from Los Angeles, it is rare to see a toll on the maze of freeways except down in Orange County. It would also hurt those that can only do cash and rely on the tollbooth. The 185 unionized workers that man the booths would also be fazed out.

For the vast majority of people, this works out great. Long waits to get into the Lincoln, Holland and Midtown tunnels are horrendous and frustrating to be a part of. When you need to rush to the airport, you really feel it (which is why I take the train now, not to mention way less expensive). The reduced pollution from idling cars is also very nice. So while a few will be inconvenienced by the change, I think that the new system would benefit New York, as long as the minority that rely on the the booths be accommodated somehow.

Eliminating Pollution And Cars In NYC

Bloomberg's plan to implement congestion pricing for Manhattan has sparked much debate since he unveiled the idea. Studies have shown that the areas with the most vehicle-trips into the city come from expected areas, such as eastern Queens, lower Staten Island and southern Brooklyn. The odd one out though, is the Upper East Side. The richest and also highly dense section of Manhattan has over 7,000 residents who drive to work daily.

Those cars add considerably to the traffic, the congestion and the carbon monoxide output on the island. Eight dollars a day might not do much to their pocketbooks while residents of the outer burroughs are going to be hit harder. Some UES'ers might switch to mass transit, but we'll see if it comes to be if and when congestion pricing is implemented. Commuters that take the heavily traveled Lex line worry that crowding on the train will get even worse, especially since it is the only line on the Eastside. The Second Avenue subway would help, but who knows if that will ever be built.

As an almost daily rider of the Lex local, my opinion is let them come on down. If it helps the environment in and around the city, then I won't mind the extra riders. Manhattan is a unique city in the United States where cars are really unnecessary. I was glad to give my car up to come to New York, so the natives that do sit in traffic shouldn't mind it too much to do their part.

Can NYC Traffic Be Cut?

Anyone and everyone in New York City knows how horrendous traffic congestion can be. Thankfully I don't drive in the city but for the people I know that do, my deepest sympathies go out to them for braving the mess everyday. The situation seems hopeless, but there is a faint glimmer of hope if only Gotham could grasp it.

From Streetsblog:

As cars and trucks clogged the arteries of lower Manhattan on their way out of the central business district yesterday evening (right), Murray-Clark held forth to a capacity crowd at 7 World Trade Center. Sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences, the lecture also featured Stephen A. Hammer of Columbia University and CUNY’s Dr. Robert "Buzz" Paaswell, director of the University Transportation Research Center and former executive director of the Chicago Transit Authority.

From the start, Murray-Clark said, London Mayor Ken Livingstone pulled no punches regarding his intention to reduce auto traffic. In fact, Livingstone ran on a platform that included congestion pricing. And upon taking office in 2000, he got to work. Today, London is one of two major world cities experiencing a reduction in car trips (Paris is the other).

“It was a bold policy to embark upon,” Murray-Clark said, and one that proceeded through a combination of thoughtful planning and shrewd political maneuvering. Rather than wait years for upgrades to London’s already overcrowded subway system, for example, TfL leveraged congestion pricing revenue to invest heavily in new buses. In order to ease opposition in the early stages, Livingstone offered a 90 percent discount for residents of the congestion zone, and courted the trucking industry by offering it the same rate per vehicle as passenger cars.

Murray-Clark implemented a successful plan that is alleviating the traffic problems in London. The question is would it work in Manhattan? If only New York had a centralized agency that handled traffic concerns then all it would take to implement the plan is a simple action. However in New York, countless 'Authorities' govern various cogs of the New York traffic apparatus. To me, this all seems like a pipe dream in New York and a nice thing to see and visit while in London.