The pack of issues under the rubric of "congestion pricing" consists of a number of public policy questions which will affect many people's daily lives and their pockets. This important matter may, or may not, be at the point of resolution. We have looked at the proposal long and hard and listened to different points of view. Some questions are unanswered, others require forward-looking judgments, which are necessarily uncertain.

Having thought about the issue for weeks, we wrote three columns on "congestion pricing", one supportive, one skeptical, and the third critical of the plan.  They are headed, Yes, No and Maybe. We invite you to read as much as you like of any of them. When you think you have made up your mind, look at the column which presents the opposite view.

An unusual factor here is the disconnect between the merits of the individuals and the merits of the cause they sincerely support. That is part of the reason this has been one of the most difficult columns we have had to written in six years. The issues are clear to true believers on either side. They are, however, muddled to skeptics, those of us who do not have the gift of faith with regard to politics.

Make up your own mind. It's not as if our views are likely to affect the result; the matter is now before the Democratic conference in the Assembly. But they are elected officials, and if we can make our views known, it is possible that they will listen. Most people seem to have taken positions, but some are still unsure, and for others, their support may depend on just what the modified plan will provide.

Here we go:

 

1. YES

The business districts of lower Manhattan are currently paralyzed by excessive traffic, and the situation is growing worse..  People cannot get to their appointments, even if they take cabs, because the cabs are in the same traffic jams as the cars and trucks. It takes over a half hour to cross the borough by car, which is comparable to the time it would take to walk the distance if you were a healthy walker.

We cannot expect corporations or large stores to locate in areas in which people are unable to get around, no matter how much they are willing to pay. People going to appointments, business or medical, or trying to connect with other transit, are particularly vulnerable. The time, energy and gasoline wasted by creeping cars is enormous.

At the same time our mass transit facilities are underfunded and overcrowded, long past rush hours which now extend on Manhattan routes for most of the business day. The routes themselves are overcapacity, with trains having to wait until the train ahead of them leaves the station.  This is not the fault of the MTA, the agency has been systematically starved by state and local governments with budget pressures of their own.. 

Congestion pricing is a way both to reduce traffic in the business district of Manhattan and provide revenue for mass transit which will make a subway or bus ride quicker and more attractive. It is a classic win-win situation.  New York has been offered $354 million in federal transit aid if it approves congestion pricing before April 7.  The feds have generously extended two previous deadlines, now is the time to act.

The plan has been approved by Governor Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg, Speaker Quinn, Senator Bruno, a majority of the City Council, a galaxy of environmental organizations, the editorial boards of three of the city's major newspapers, labor leaders, business organizations like the New York Partnerships, a profusion of nonprofits, and civic leaders of every race, creed and color.. 

This is a chance to move New York into the front tier of world cities, like London, Singapore and Stockholm, that have already adopted congestion pricing. We would take a leadership role in the United States, as we have on other issues.

There is also serious concern about the fact that we are depleting fossil fuels, which are no longer being created from dead vegetables. Some day we will run out of oil, and the more we waste now the sooner that day will be. The idea that people cannot travel unless they are surrounded by a two or three ton vehicle that reproduces their living rooms is an idea whose time has passed, and the sooner we realize that the better.

Enlightened leadership has brought this proposal to the brink of passage.   It should not be bottled up or strangled by people acting on behalf of small groups of individuals who place their selfish interest above the public good.

As President Woodrow Wilson said on March 4, 1917, (at his second inauguration), "A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible." 

We cannot allow this to happen in the City of New York.

Editorials and Columns For Congestion Pricing:

NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02wed4.html?ref=opinion

Daily News

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/03/28/2008-03-28_real_gains_fake_pains.html?page=0

Newsday

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpcon285628381mar28,0,167817.story

 

2. NO

What do you say when all the good guys are wrong, and the usual suspects happen to be right?

That is the situation the State Assembly faces as it takes up a new tax on motorists called 'congestion pricing'.

It is an idea which has theoretical merit - limiting automobile traffic in a highly congested area to provide both traffic relief and revenue for mass transit.

The problem comes in its application to New York City.  What it means is the imposition of tolls on the four great East River bridges, which have been free for a century.  These are the bridges that connect Manhattan with Brooklyn and Queens, the three most populous of the five boroughs that comprise Greater New York, one city since January 1, 1898.

Some parts of the city are more crowded than others, usually business districts during working hours.  A disincentive for cars to enter these areas would be helpful.  Actually, such a disincentive exists.  It is called traffic.   When traffic moves slowly, people are less likely to go those places at those times.  To a certain extent, overcrowding is self-limiting.  But not sufficiently, because when you have to go somewhere, you don't want to take a half-hour to cross Manhattan, or inch forward in any shopping are anywhere in the city.

Taxing private cars merely to enter Manhattan would accentuate the difference between the Golden Isle and the four outer boroughs.

It is contrary to the concept of one city, which mayoral candidates all ardently endorse.   It applies the means test to intracity travel; the equivalent of constructing a wall and charging citizens to cross it.  Artificial barriers within a city are usually despised - think of Berlin.

Walls were built outside cities to protect them from danger.  To build a wall within a city to create an economic test for people who want to drive from one neighborhood to another, to shop, to see a doctor or visit a hospital, to visit a sick friend.  Very few people drive into lower Manhattan on weekdays for the pleasure of driving - they know that the streets are crowded and driving is no pleasure.

There is also no assurance that any money raised through tolling the bridges will actually be new money for transit.  Who can stop the State of New York from reducing its own transit subsidy in view of the MTA's new source of revenue.

In the last half century, the toll on the Henry Hudson Bridge has gone from ten cents to two dollars and seventy-five cents.

The fee for entering lower Manhattan will start at eight dollars.  What do you think it will be in ten or twenty years?

We would like to suppport congestion pricing because of our high regard for many of the people and institutions that are for it.

But it was "the best and the brightest" that got us into the war in Vietnam.  There is also a strong herd instinct in issues like this. If one side appears to be the side of the angels, people and their letterheads rush to associate themselves with it.  This is particularly true when the side of the angels is also the side with the money.

At the same time, we don't mind the idea of fewer cars, sorry if they turn out to be the cars of the poor and middle class.  The fee will be no obstacle to those who travel in business class or first class, people to whom the crowded subway is not a realistic alternative. Do you think a man who wants to travel in his private palace will be deterred by a fee, which most of them will charge to their companies anyway. The people who pay their own money will be primarily people who can't afford it. Cars do not visit lower Manhattan during business days on pleasure trips. The fee therefore will not significantly reduce traffic.

Can you imagine what will happen at the bridges while people wait until 6 p.m.for the cameras to be turned off. And the morning rush to get through before they go on. We will create a whole new set of problems which we cannnot imagine today.

A substantial investment, at least eight figures and possibly nine, will have to made before the system is instituted.   Having some awareness of government construction and procurement, we believe that the cost of installing the system will be significantly higher than the current estimate, which from experience we say is probably low-ball.

The scheme also calls for the expansion of government activity to a new level; photographing license plates of ordinary citizens who cross bridges and tunnels, and collecting that data.  Will an angry wife be able to find out whether and when her husband crossed the river for a dalliance?  Who can be certain that data will be protected. Look what they did with Governor Spitzer's extremely private telephone calls. Do you want the authorities to know everywhere you go? Is this a free country, or not?

For many reasons, congestion pricing may be more trouble than it is worth.  The State government has already reduced its  commitment to transit. What is to stop Albany from cutting it out altogether. Remember how they promoted the New York State lottery as providing funds for education, and failed to increase school budgets becauses they were receiving aid from the lottery. Do you believe anything these people tell you?.

We do not know whether congestion pricing to be approved by the legislature. The Assembly could make significant improvements in the bill, with regard to control over raising the fees, changing the hours, or revising the boundaries of the zone.  Those decisions should be made by elected, not appointed officials. 

The Assembly should provide a sunset clause, as it did with mayoral control of the Department of Education.  It could forbid the issuance of bonds intended to circumvent the sunset provisions.  It could use the pricing mechanism to encourage passenger vehicles that are lighter and more economically friendly.

But, even with all the tweaking and tugging the Assembly is capable of doing with the bill, and they are good at that, what remains is a basic ssue of public policy.

Can, and should, the municipality impose a new tax on people driving through city streets? If they can do it downtown or midtown, they will be able to do it anywhere. Is that what we want in a free country?

Editorials and Columns Against Congestion Pricing:

NY Post

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03312008/postopinion/editorials/congestion_bait_and_switch_104320.htm

NY Sun

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/congestion-formula

http://www2.nysun.com/article/65755

http://www2.nysun.com/article/73472

 

3: MAYBE

We believe that congestion pricing could be a reasonable experiment, and would reduce auto traffic somewhat but not enormously. We are troubled by the concept of New Yorkers having to pay to enter Manhattan, as if the island were a gilded zone that the peasants could only visit by paying a substantial toll, twice what they now pay on most toll bridges, and 800 times more than they paid on the Brooklyn Bridge when it opened on May 24, 1883 in the presence of President Chester Alan Arthur and Governor Grover Cleveland (the last two New Yorkers to become President before the Roosevelts).

On the other hand, bridges are expensive to maintain, even more so if their care has been neglected over the years. It is reasonable for users to pay costs that are directly attributed to the construction and maintenance of a bridge they use. The claim: "a bridge is just a street over water" does not do justice to the four monumental, historic structures which are the now-free East River bridges: Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensborough. 

These great structures contributed enormously to the development of Greater New York. When the city was created by the merger of the boroughs on January 1, 1898, one of its advantages was easy access between the boroughs, except for Staten Island. The Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges are subway routes, The B,D,N and Q lines use the Manhattan bridge, and the J, M and Z lines are on the Williamsburg. The Brooklyn Bridge once included an elevated line and a trolley to City Hall. When it opened, he toll was one cent. In 1910 the toll was removed after the State of New York enacted legislation prohibiting charging tolls to finance construction or maintenance of bridges.

Times have changed in the last 125 years, cars replaced horses. Livestock, once specifically pemitted, no longer cross the bridge. The trolley cars and elevated line have been removed over the years. The footpath remains, but it is not that easy to reach.

If congestion fees are warranted, they should appply to those who enter the crowded streets of lower Manhattan, not simply cross the East River to reach arterial highways.  Assemblyman James Brennan of Brooklyn has proposed that drivers crossing bridges and proceeding directly to circumferential routes like the FDR Drive should be exempted from the fee. They do not cause congestion in any business district.

Brennan's suggestion appears fair and reasonable. Drivers headed from Long Island to the Hudson Valley or New England, who have no intention or desire to use city streets, ought not be trapped by a measure whose ostensible purpose is to reduce street congestion downtown. If these drivers want a short cut to save time, they can pay the ever-increasing toll on the Triborough, Bronx Whitestone or Throggs Neck bridges, cash cows for the MTA, which certainly needs their help. No public transit system is self-supporting, especially with the capital debt and interest payments the State of New York requires from the Authority, and there is nothing wrong with excess toll revenues helping to support mass transit. Imposing new tolls for that purpose could be another matter.

The Senate-approved plan does not have enough support to pass in the Assembly. Amendments to the plan could go a long way to resolving objections to it. One good suggestion is that the plan be clearly denominated as a trial, with no legal gimmickry in the form of bond covenants to make it permanent. Authority over rates, zones affected and times the fees apply must remain in the hands of elected officials, rather than an appointed board shielded from responsibility, as the Mitigation Commission turned out to be.

We know the April 7 deadline is a red herring, like the two previous deadlines, July 16, 2007 and March 31, 2008. Nobody likes to negotiate at gunpoint, even though sometimes it is the only way to bring conflicting parties together.

The political irony in this situation is that the elites now demand that Silver do what they have always complained about, direct the Democratic Assemblymembers to vote in a particular way. Congestion pricing deserves a floor vote, not strangulation.

The City Council approved a home rule message at considerable public expense, in the form of capital budget amendments which are not fictional, and other promises made to members for the mayor to secure thirty votes in the Council for the plan. After all that, the administration deserves the opportunity to try out the plan for a few years.

Congestion pricing could out to be beneficial, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars of transit revenue annually. The money will go to capital improvements, but who can assure maintenance of effort?  Traffic conditions could improve both downtown and midtown. Childhood asthma could become as rare as tuberculosis, but that is doubtful..

What is likely an intermediate level of achievement.. (Rule 30-T: The truth lies somewhere in between.) Then it will be up to a future legislature (consisting primarily of the same people as make up the present the legislature) to determine whether the noble experiment has succeeded. If it works, keep it. If not, junk it.

The lead story in Thursday's Sun, by Jacob Gershman, sounded like saber rattling in terms of threatening Speaker Silver in his own distric. A rattling saber could, or couldn't be a rattling rattlesnake. It might bite. Silver already has two rivals and the more the merrier as far he is concerned.It could bite. It would, however, be a great injustice if Speaker Silver, whom we have repeatedly criticized, were challenged because he allowed the Democratic Assemblymembers to vote their consciences on an issue of this important. The good guys want the bosses when they need them, but denounce them when they don't..

Our guess is that the Speaker, in the end, may go along with the mayor and the media, and approve congestion pricing in some form, but surely not the present one.. His own district could see some benefit from reduced traffic, and his constituents would only have to pay if they traveled by car to, God forbid, Brooklyn. Silver would allow a free vote if the result would conform to wishes, lest his reputation as the alpha and omega of the Assembly be diminished. He too has a reputation to protect.

The most notable exertion of Silver's awesome power was the repeal of the commuter tax on May 17, 1999, where Manhattanites and many others dissented, but enough dumb or pliant Democrats to gave the Speaker a 92-49 victory, 76 votes being needed for passage. That has cost New York City $4 billion in tax revenue over eight years.

The State Senate modifed the bill as a condition of passing it. On Monday, or later, we will learn what the Assembly input will be. It is likely that all this tweaking will result in a better bill, which would attract sufficient support for passage. Then look for a year of lawsuits, which are the inevitable sequel to any government action..  Mayor Bloomberg just pointed out that Speaker Silver has done most of the things the mayor asked for, except for the West Side Stadium.

So far Speaker Silver has played a very constructive role with regard to congestion pricing. By meeting and listening to his members he has raised his own reputation and that of the Assembly. He has given us a glimpse of what could be, and he deserves credit for that.

It is quite possible that congestion pricing could help New York City. The pressure that has been applied on its behalf is necessary to conquer the parochial interests of those who oppose it because they have been getting a free ride. Give it a chance.

Additional articles:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04042008/news/regionalnews/congetion_plan_idles_104921.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/04/05/2008-04-05_changes_may_be_needed_for_traffic_plan.html