The win in which everyone lost

Albany just gave New York City the finger, killing the congestion-pricing plan without even a vote so no one could be blamed for the debacle. It was the ultimate face-off between car drivers and transit riders. Drivers won this round. But it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

The price of gas will continue its rise and as more and more drivers are forced to opt for transit, many may wish more money had been invested in transit. They”™ll wish they had opted for that $351 million in federal monies to support the plan that would have supported our needy transit network.

After Sheldon Silver announced the plan”™s demise, a statement was released by Mary Peters, the federal transportation secretary, that her department would distribute these funds to other cities with traffic-fighting proposals.

There will be more head-to-head encounters between those who feel it is their inalienable right to drive wherever and whenever and with no cost, and those who choose, or are forced to choose, to be pedestrians. As it is now, those who choose to drive, when there are numerous mass-transit alternatives heading into the city, are creating unhealthy air in a very densely packed urban environment, creating hazardous walking conditions for pedestrians and slowing economic activity in the city to a crawl. Tradesmen, who need to be on the street to do their work, lose money every minute they sit in traffic, thus driving up the cost of their labor. To many people in the city time is money and $8 can be lost in a heartbeat by traffic delays.

The New York Thruway tried to introduce congestion pricing for all vehicles on the Tappan Zee Bridge in the 1990s but found that the peak hour was so expanded that altering drive times was simply not a realistic option. Adequate transit options were also unavailable. However, congestion pricing for trucks was doable and has been in effect since 1997. Though the public claims the highway is overwhelmed with trucks, during the peak travel hours congestion pricing has had a real effect on travel patterns for the trucking industry.

Other cities have effectively instituted congestion pricing ”“ London, Singapore, Stockhom ”“ progressive cities all. So what exactly happened in New York with regard to initiating a proven traffic mitigating plan like congestion pricing? Surprise! Politics got in the way. To some in Albany there was a deep-seated need to let that arrogant New York City mayor know who was really in charge. What a noble and visionary approach to the state”™s ongoing dilemmas. To be sure the mayor was incredibly high-handed in his handling of this initiative ”“ little or no direct contact with the powers-that-be in Albany and seemingly no interest in developing a champion or even solid supporters in the legislature.

Arrogance was not limited to the mayor but washed over a well-known environmental organization. The League of Conservation Voters one could almost say put out a hit on lawmakers who voted against the plan by forming a PAC to go after those errant individuals.

Arrogance hardly stops there. Organizations such as Regional Plan Association and Tri-State Transportation Campaign claim to be regional in their perspective but continually back only transit projects for Manhattan. This strategy has earned the organizations a lot of animosity from the outer boroughs in which no new transit has been built in who-knows-how-long and would have been heavily impacted by the congestion-pricing plan because of the lack of good alternatives. Buses get stuck in the same traffic that the plan was supposed to mitigate.

The suburban opposition to anything that would limit free driving privileges was engineered by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who claimed it would hurt the poor who are probably the least likely to be driving into the city. The fact that Brodsky has been heavily supported by the parking garage industry, the major beneficiary of congestion, is not irrelevant. Brodsky went after the city”™s taxicab fleet as if it were the problem, completely misunderstanding the important role it plays in reducing the number of personal vehicles in the city.

Each fare that a cab picks up in the course of the day could have been served by an individual car.

Brodsky”™s skewed view of transportation issues in the city is symbolic of the lack of understanding between city and suburb and how different they are and how totally dependent each is on the other. They better get together pretty soon because the cost the congestion that Albany just blew off is costing the region plenty. The congestion in the metro area costs upward of $18 billion, including the cost of vehicular death, damage to property and loss of time. Voting against congestion pricing merely pushed the cost higher ”“ every year.

A little visionary thinking in the Empire State is long overdue.