Panel greenlights congestion pricing
A state commission, having tweaked New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg”™s controversial plan to charge commuters and truckers driving in Manhattan”™s central business district, last week sent its modified version of congestion pricing to city and state officials for approval. Still the question looms: “Is it enactable?”
That was one among many questions raised by Assemblyman Richard J. Brodsky, D-Greenburgh, at the final meeting Jan. 31 of the state Traffic Mitigation Commission at Metropolitan Transportation Authority headquarters in midtown Manhattan. Brodsky, a leading opponent of congestion pricing, was one of two dissenting voices on the 17-member commission who voted against the fee plan, calling it a regressive tax against working-class and middle-class residents of the outer boroughs that spared wealthy suburban and Manhattan residents and businesses from paying their fair share for regional transportation improvements.
The answer to his pointed question lies with state legislators in Albany, who are expected to consider the commission”™s recommendations for a congestion pricing law, first proposed last spring by Bloomberg, in the midst of their annual budget-adoption scramble over the next two months. Though the city and state could lose out on $354 million in federal transportation aid if congestion pricing is not adopted by March 31, that deadline might not be enough to sway politicians who share Brodsky”™s concerns to fall in line behind the plan, legislators representing Westchester County and the Bronx suggested last week.
The commission”™s wrap-up meeting was largely a show of support for congestion pricing as a measure that would reduce vehicular traffic in the city”™s business center and surrounding neighborhoods ”“ by 6.8 percent in the fee zone, the commission reported ”“ and consequently curb air pollution levels in the metropolitan area. Most commissioners backed the plan not only for its environmental benefits but especially as a needed revenue source for mass transit improvements in the region that will steer commuters from private auto use.
The commission said its plan will raise an estimated $491 million in annual net revenue for transportation investment. Commissioners said that money should be dedicated to the MTA capital plan for the region, which MTA CEO Elliot “Lee” Sander, a commission member, said will be presented in March.
“I believe that in the context of approving an MTA capital plan at the end of March, this (congestion pricing) plan could be enacted” in Albany, commission chairman Marc V. Shaw said in reply to Brodsky”™s question.
Commissioners also recommended their congestion pricing plan not be implemented until short-term improvements to subway, bus and express bus services handling the anticipated increase in passengers are completed.
In Westchester, county Transportation Commissioner Lawrence Salley told the commissioners at a public hearing last fall that an influx of mass-transit riders would “inundate” existing parking and access systems for Metro-North train stations and “overwhelm” Westchester Bee Line bus service to the city. The county bus line carries about 40,000 riders in and out of Manhattan each weekday and about 5,000 to and from Metro-North stations, Salley said.
State Sen. Jeff Klein, D-34th District, who represents portions of the Bronx and southern Westchester communities, last week said he remains opposed to the congestion pricing plan. Among several concerns, “A lot of communities that have convenient Metro-North stations are going to become parking lots” for fee-avoiding commuters, he said.
Klein noted Manhattanites living below 60th Street, the northern boundary proposed by the commission in contrast to Bloomberg”™s 86th Street, would be exempt from a fee when traveling within the zone, unlike Bloomberg”™s plan. “It”™s very similar to the mayor”™s original plan and, if at all possible, even worse,” he said. “This is going to have a disproportionate impact on someone from the Bronx or Westchester.”
Brodsky, who seemed to vex some commission colleagues with his barrage of hostile questions, warned them, “We are rewriting the social contract between the government and the people of this region” by adopting a plan “based on ability to pay.” Those who cannot afford the fee will take mass transit, he said, while the rich and businesses benefiting from mass-transit improvements, such as the real estate industry and hotels, do not contribute, he said.
“Taxicabs ”“ used largely by richer people ”“ pay a buck” as proposed, he said. “Working-class guys pay $8” to enter the zone.
“What sort of vision is that for the funding of mass transit?” Brodsky said. “If we”™re going to raise money on my watch, we”™re going to make sure the wealthy and the business community pay.
“If you want to fund mass transit, let”™s make everybody pay their fair share. This fails the fundamental test of fairness.”
One sector of the business community, trucking, will pay more than its fair share under the congestion pricing plan, in the view of an industry lobbyist in Albany.
“I don”™t see anything that makes it more appealing for our industry,” William G. Joyce, president of the 850-member New York State Motor Truck Association, said last week of the commission”™s plan, which left unchanged Bloomberg”™s proposal to charge trucks $21 to enter the zone, regardless of size. Joyce added truckers might benefit from an offset on the congestion fee for E-Z Pass bridge and highway tolls, though that deduction, while specifically applying to cars, “is kind of a gray area” for trucks in the revised plan.
Truckers could avoid the fee by making night or early-morning deliveries. But in the trucking business, “We don”™t have the ability to change behavior because of economic disincentives,” Joyce said. “When a customer wants you at noon, you”™re in at noon. We don”™t have the option of taking the subway instead.
“I don”™t know how many bodega owners you”™re going to get to open at 3 in the morning to accept freight,” he added.
Joyce said the congestion fee would be “devastating” for trucking companies. “There”™s no way they can do this without giving back the charge in pricing for customers,” he said. “Freight charges are going to rise dramatically. The bottom line is, that cost comes out of the customer.”
In the state Legislature, “I don”™t know that there”™s any practical way to stop it,” Joyce said. “I think the overwhelming cry is they”™re not going to want to lose the federal money” by failing to act by the March 31 deadline.
Assemblyman Adam Bradley, D-89th District, said while he thinks the goals behind the plan are “laudable,” “I”™m not sure that we”™re addressing this in a fair and equitable manner. My problems are more with the mechanism than with the goal. I think there is a broad concern in the Assembly about the fairness of the proposal.”
“To do a bad plan just because there may be federal monies available would be disastrous,” he said.
It”™s not just a bad plan, Brodsky told his commission colleagues: “This is awful on a level that I don”™t understand.
“If you liked congestion pricing ”“ and I don”™t ”“ you”™d never adopt this plan,” he said. “Do you have any idea what the chaos will be next year if this is the way we proceed?”
He predicted the fee will rise to $20 in two to three years, similar to the substantial fee hike in London, England, which adopted congestion pricing in 2005. The $8 fee “isn”™t enough of a deterrent and it won”™t raise the money” needed for mass-transit improvements, Brodsky said.
So will it become law?
Among Albany lawmakers, said Klein, “I really don”™t think they”™ve picked up any new allies. It had opposition before and I think it still has opposition.”