April 1, 2008
Bloomberg Thrilled With Council's Congestion Pricing Approval
Mayor Bloomberg was beaming when he, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and other City Council members gathered for a press conference to hail the Council's approval of congestion pricing last night, 30 votes in favor to 20 against. Bloomberg, who introduced the idea of charging drivers entering Manhattan (at 60th street or below) a fee, said, "The sun is shining on New York City's future today."
He also lavished praise on Quinn, noting her "principled leadership" and commitment to the city and its residents, "Christine Quinn really did stand up and, with the power of persuasion and the arguments that we all know make a lot of sense here, she managed to get 30 votes when I think most people did not expect this to pass."
Quinn herself said she was proud of her fellow Council members for voting for the plan even though it's a tough sell. Councilman Michael McMahon said he was taking a "leap of faith" by approving the plan while Councilman David Yassky was more emphatic, "We can't remain the capital of the world if it takes a half-hour to go five blocks in Midtown."
It was still considered a narrow vote (some critics said the Mayor, in trying to entice Council members to back the plan, promised to host fundraisers and back their projects). Opponents were vocal about their unhappiness: Councilman Leroy Comrie said, "I have absolutely no faith in the MTA being honest with New Yorkers" (the MTA would get revenue from the plan) and Councilman Lewis Fidler said, "What's next? We're going to charge a user fee to go into Central Park because it's crowded?"
The State Legislature must now decide whether to approve congestion pricing by April 7, in order to qualify for $354 million in federal funds. While Governor Paterson and State Senate Majority Bruno support the plan, Assembly Leader Silver has been less enthusiastic, to the point of Bloomberg being kinda pissed.
|
i would like to see how much of our tax money was squandered by Quinn (and how many checks left bloomberg's checkbook) in payouts and largess to get some of these council members to flip on this. it would make a good investigative report. we already know bloomie paid off Bruno and co. $500M.
If I had money, I would personally pay for an audit of the MTA. There's definitely plenty of money in the pipeline, but some unskilled workers and lackeys are getting paid $75k+ most likely to do an easy job.
dont vote for Christine Quinn she dont care to put a tax of nyc witout putting out a referendum
for all nyc voters to vote for agast who put a tax of you
pay back for Christine tax Quinn
people will believe whatever fairytales they want to on this. If the state legislature passes it, we'll just have to see where things stand in a few years.
Of course, in a few years NYC will probably have lower traffic anyway as the recession and loss of jobs from the financial services industry finally hits.
eyekantspel, good point. unfortunately at the rate the city and state are looking at increasing the already ridiculous taxes and fees we pay (#1 in the nation), I doubt any of these jobs would come back here once they're gone. i guess they don't really think about who will actually pay the taxes for all the people on the city gov't teat.
Councilman Fidler, please hush. I know that Bloomberg's already back in the bullpen mulling over the idea of charging an entrance fee for Central Park to ease recreational congestion.
shame on you simcha for puting a tax of nyc
it will be big pay back time aganst you for putting a tax of nyc witout a referendum
Fidler continues to make the same disingenuous arguments. Nobody is charging YOU to enter the CBD. They're charging your CAR, because your CAR creates negative externalities like air pollution and noise and crowded streets and pedestrian fatalities. YOU ARE NOT YOUR CAR.
And in case Fidler somehow missed the memo, only a tiny minority of NYC residents commute by car into the CBD.
Brooklyn and I, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The vast majority of changes to "tax" policy (which this is not) take place without any sort of referendum.
Hmmm? Great idea Dave. An entrance fee for Central Park. That way all the private school kids can use the ballfields without all those other classes interfering with Buffy and Bosworth's sports schedule. Not to mention that little Fifi can finally run free without being harassed or eaten by those vulgar larger dogs.
This fight is far from over. Let your local Assembly member and Shelly Silver in particular know that you oppose this backwards and regressive plan:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=064&sh=con
I really don't see what all you folks who oppose this are up in arms about? What? You don't want to pay money? You just want things to be as convenient for you as possible?
Poor babies.
If Bloomberg wanted to help the MTA he should donate some of his billions to the system. Why does he or any other billionaire need that amount of money? It's more money then any person on this planet needs to survive in.
Once he is long gone and dead where does his billions go?
I applaud the foresight of the Council members who voted yes. Now reforming or dissolving the MTA should be the next big endeavor.
Steven, his billions rearrange themselves into a money escalator to heaven.
I actually wouldn't be paying squat. I just don't like the idea of some people being priced off the streets while others go about their business as usual.
realityczech, on that note, why don't you stop living off of others and actually pay market rent for the roof over your head. why shouldn't you pay your own way? you want others to subsidize you for the "convenience" of living in the city? boo-hoo.
To get a better understanding about congestion pricing and it's effects, you should read how people in the other boroughs feel about it. The people living outside of Manhattan are the old NYC families that have living here for generations.
http://www.silive.com/
This plan is illegal.
Socialists like big govt and high taxes. There is no chance the state will pass this.
Im hoping this is a joke!
Not only are we paying high taxes, we are over paying for transportation and gas prices are still high now we are going to have to worry about congestion pricing!???!!
More ways to take are money! and dont expect to see your money being in good use because that will never happen!
Kissel,
Ass, I own my place and I pay mortgage.
Why don't you stop trying to do what is most convenient for you and do what is better for the world around you. No wonder this country is falling apart. It's people like you who want everything but don't want to sacrifice one bit of convenience.
Greedy fugger.
Socialists like big govt and high taxes.
Yeah, and republicans like big militaries and low taxes which is why this country is going down the shitter.
The not-so-hidden ace up the sleeves of congestion pricing opponents is the fact that there has been no Environmental Impact Statement done for this. The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) would clearly be involved in something that would bring massive environmental changes to the entire region, yet supporters have yet to complete one, or, to my knowledge, even start one, which would take years to complete. Bet your bottom dollar that if the Assembly actually does approve congestion pricing that the SEQRA lawsuit would be filed the next day and stop the whole thing dead.
Reality Czech,
So you lied before in one of your posts some time back? or you lied now. Doesn't matter anyway. Enjoy the new tax with no service improvements and the extra crowding.
What's to review? Of course it would be good for the environment! Not that you care.
this is a good plan. i think it's fair for those who wish to drive in manhattan to pay for the privilage.
i think that all proceedes from this program should be earmarked exclusively for capital improvements on outerboro transit: namely extensions of the 7 and perhaps the M line to the "dead" areas of queens and opening up staten island via subway.
To put another spin on where the money will be going.
Let's say all the money from congestion pricing goes towards the MTA. Who's not to say the money the MTA is receiving now will be cut even more to go towards other programs, since the MTA is having another stream of revenue.
JenChungsBra please just take some time to at least READ the proposal you are publicly bashing. Section 1709: Environmental study and mitigation.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/03/19/pricing-bill-appears-in-albany-bloomberg-and-paterson-meet/
Driving in Manhattan nor anywhere else in New York City's five boroughs is not a privilege. The roads are open and for public use and paid for with taxes.
Oh, also, blablaNYC, SILive.com's readership, being dominantly white-collar, with an average income over $80K, and 20% actively in the car-buying market, I don't think that's an accurate representation of "people in the outer boroughs." It's a representation of upper middle-class car owners on Staten Island. Exactly the group that the city is trying to dissuade from driving, and exactly the group that can afford to pay the fee anyway.
http://www.advanceinternet.com/mediakit/content/graph_con_silive.html
I've read it more than you can imagine, IJ. What YOU should do please is to take some time to familiarize yourself with SEQRA law:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/357.html
It basically says that when a government project will have a potentially adverse effect on the environment anywhere, the government has to identify and mitigate those effects before the project proceeds. And guess what? The studies and monitoring proposed as part of the CP plan to gauge its effectiveness once implemented don't qualify as the full blown environmental SEQRA assessments that have to be done before the fact.
But wait, you say, the overall effect of congestion pricing will be beneficial to the environment! Perhaps. But it would be very easy for someone living on, say...61st Street to claim that his local area will be adversely affected by traffic backing up at 5:45 PM waiting for the fee period to end, or by people parking in his neighborhood to avoid crossing 60th street, etc. And it doesn't even have to be proven, it just has to be likely enough that it qualifies for what's known as a "positive declaration" under SEQRA, which would then trigger the whole EIS process.
BTW, I'm far from the only person who knows this. Various Councilmembers who voted against the plan have been keeping this one in reserve.
Corzine blasts congestion pricing plan
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/corzine_blasts_ny_officials_fo.html
thankyou mr corzine for you halp to kill this tax
The vast majority of changes to "tax" policy (which this is not) take place without any sort of referendum.
So, when this goes in to the budget as "expected money" and then it theoretically succeeds and the amount of cars are reduced, creating a budget shortfall, where, exactly, do you think they will make up the money?
It's OK though. It's typical New Yorker crap. "It won't affect me, so it's OK." I'm sure the people in Inwood can't wait for their streets to become parking lots.
TKaisen, don't you know? Eight dollars is just the beginning. Congestion pricing supporters have every intention of jacking the price up as high as possible as soon as possible. Eight bucks is like the introductory rate on an adjustable rate mortgage, designed to sucker you into signing on the dotted line.
SEQRA is not a secret. Everyone knows about it, especially transportation officials as they are bound by it every day. You should read that document too before making comments here. Actions of the State Legislature are not bound by SEQRA (ยง617.5 Type II actions; #37). If the bill, which by the way states that an EIS will be undertaken before the date of implementation (September 1st), is approved by the State Legislature, then the SEQRA rules will not apply.
The idea is that, with informed officials having signed off on a position of confidence that a catastrophic condition will not result, then, in the case of a PILOT PROJECT approved by State Legislature, the full environmental review can come after the pilot has been initiated. Then, the impacts of the pilot will be studied and the project comes up for review and a decision is made whether to extended the pilot, make it permanent, or terminate it. Basically, try things out and see how they work. Sounds pretty sensible to me. This is a much more accurate way to measure environmental impacts than making projections.
Kissel,
I will.
Enjoy your life as a douche-bag.
Christine Quinn just put the last nail in her political coffin with this ridiculousness. The outer boroughs won't forget. She's all for making the air better for children in NYC. Which children? The rich ones in Manhattan below 60th Street? The proposal in its current form is a sham and anyone who feels public transit is going to be "saved" or, better yet, "improved" by this are fooling themselves. Hopefully, New York State will work to amend this into something fairer, something all New Yorkers (and New Jerseyans for that matter) can live with.
>Congestion pricing supporters have every intention of jacking the >price up as high as possible as soon as possible. Eight bucks is >like the introductory rate on an adjustable rate mortgage, >designed to sucker you into signing on the dotted line.
Actually $8 is probably too low, since that's now the same as the Holland Tunnel Toll. It probably need to be near $25 for people to actually re-consider driving into downtown.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118574808780081653.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks
"In 1932, the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce decided it had to do something about the city's downtown parking problem. A local newspaper editor, Carl Magee, was charged with finding a solution. Mr. Magee invented the park-o-meter.
The nation's first parking meters -- crude, single-coin machines that charged a nickel an hour -- were installed in Oklahoma City in July 1935. Public opinion ranged from mockery to indignation. .. Many drivers believed that charging for parking was downright un-American. The "newfangled nuisances," "damn foolish contraptions" or "gypometers," opponents said, illegally infringed on the individual's right to free use of the public streets. They amounted to a tax on automobiles, depriving owners of their property without due process."
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/003752.php
"Were parking meters an immediate success? They were, of course, unpopular with the commuters who could no longer park all day in prime spots at a zero price... The mayor of Oklahoma City denied responsibility for the meters; the city manager refused to pose for photos with them. But... the meters were popular with storeowners, because they freed space for shoppers exactly as intended: 'Their first production run of parking meters was installed on one side of the street in downtown Oklahoma City on July 16, 1935. Business was so affected by the parking meters after only three days, the merchants on the other side of the street demanded that parking meters be installed in front of their businesses as well.'"
If the congestion tax was about getting people to use mass transit, there wouldn't be a tax on trucks...
I am amazed how ignorant people sound when they complain about the 'rich, cigar smoking, SUV driver' paying up... Most vehicles effected by the tax are blue-collar workers providing goods and/or services we want and need!
The cost should be at least twice what it is and the money should be earmarked for transit improvements, but it's a good start. Think about how much it costs to park in the city. Eight bucks is nothing. Oh, and to brooklyn and i: I'm fairly certain Jon Corzine has no say in the matter, despite spending most of his time here. And for that matter, it affects Jerseyites less than others, as their current tolls will be included in the eight dollars. Finally, please learn how to type.
"Most vehicles effected by the tax are blue-collar workers providing goods and/or services we want and need!"
That is unadulterated bullsh*t. NYC commuters that drive into Manhattan make, on average, 30% more than those who take mass transit. New York's blue collar workers ride the subway, bub. Instead of making grand outrageous generalizations, read the real data from the NY Independent Budget Office here: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/insidethebudget154.pdf
Meanwhile, the average truck driving into Manhattan probably carries six-figures worth of goods in its payload, and you think 21 bucks is gonna break the bank? Please.
Congestion pricing is about lowering pollution levels by reducing congestion. I am amazed at how ignorant people sound when they complain about a 'tax on the poor'.
IvoryJive, you are talking about commuters that drive into Manhattan; that is a small fraction of the vehicles that enter the CBD. I am talking about the vast majority of vehicles used to provide goods and/or services where mass transit just isn't an option... As one congestion tax meeting participant correctly stated, "you can't deliver cement using the subway!" Guess what IvoryJive... Most of those people are blue-collar workers that are far from "rich."
oh- and streetsblog is FAR from a reliablie source for unbiased facts.
Actually $8 is probably too low, since that's now the same as the Holland Tunnel Toll. It probably need to be near $25 for people to actually re-consider driving into downtown.
One more time: THAT'S BECAUSE THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO LOWER CONGESTION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE A NEW INCOME STREAM FOR THE CITY. IF THEY WANTED THIS TO REDUCE CONGESTION THE PRICE WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE $30/DAY.
Colleges have ENTIRE COURSES on this. Finding a service, finding an acceptable price, and applying a tax to it. It's the same exact thing as the Coffee Tax in Seattle, the Cigarette Tax here, and the soon to be McDonald's tax that is on the way.
glennQ,
Maybe a mixer carries $5,000 worth of cement. Now with the added fee, a single load of cement going into the congestion zone will cost $5,021. If that truck can go back and forth and make three loads in a day, the cost will fall to $5007 per load. And all of this whopping $7/load will be passed on to the developer. I fail to see how this will have a devastating impact on blue-collar workers.
And by the way - Streetsblog is not the source of my data, it is just the website hosting the file. The source of the income data is from the New York City Independent Budget Office. You can also find it here: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/newsfax/insidethebudget154.pdf
TKaisen, I believe Congestion Pricing is completely intended to lower congestion. PlaNYC introduced 16 initiatives all aimed at reducing the negative environmental impacts of vehicular transport. Congestion pricing is just one of them. True that at $8, it will only reduce congestion something like 5-10%. But Congestion Pricing is not intended to do the job by itself. All together, the 16 initiatives will have a tremendous impact.
1: Increase capacity on key congested routes
2: Provide new commuter rail access to Manhattan
3: Expand transit access to underserved areas
4: Improve and expand bus service
5: Improve local commuter rail service
6: Improve access to existing transit
7: Address congested areas around the city
8: Expand ferry service
9: Promote Cycling
10: Pilot congestion pricing
11: Manage roads more efficiently
12: Strengthen enforcement of traffic violations
13: Facilitate freight movements
14: Close the Metropolitan Transit Authority's state of good repair gap
15: Close the City's road and bridge state of good repair gap
16: Establish a new regional transit financing authority
IvoryJive, consider how much extra [congestion] taxes will be paid (by the consumer) to build EVERYTHING in the taxed zone. Every product and supply will be subject to a $8-21.00 A DAY fee! Think about how many/often trucks, and vans (again- without a mass transit option) need to come into the zone over the life of a construction/renovation project!
The irony is, many of the transit improvements will be more expensive due to the cost of doing business in the zone. Doh!
Face it, it is a money grab.
Hey, you're good IJ. I want you to be my lawyer when I become a real estate developer.
Regarding the SEQRA stuff, there definitely are some council members who believe that CP wouldn't stand up to a SEQRA suit. Perhaps they're wrong, perhaps they're not. Someone might be able to make the case that a catastrophic condition may result in their little part of NYC as a result of the "pilot" project. (I say "pilot" because I don't believe that this revenue stream would ever be killed off once politicians got their hands on it.)
But let me ask, do you honestly believe a full EIS could be scoped, drafted and finalized by September 1? That seems quite unlikely to me.
When it comes to deliveries, I think in the scope of the value of the average payload and the costs of shipping, the 21 bucks is small potatoes. Most of the goods and services driven into the congestion zone have values in the thousands to the millions of dollars. The traditional costs of shipping or business travel include the gas, the driver's wages, nominal vehicle maintenance fees, and administrative costs. Now it will include a $21 congestion charge. Goods and services are delivered all across the country every day, and the shipping costs simply include any tolls incurred. Thousands of goods and services come across the George Washington Bridge every day and pay the $8 per axle toll. It's no different - it's just factored into the overhead. What CP will do is provide a small incentive for people to think before they truck things into the zone. No longer will people drive or ship things by truck in and out of lower Manhattan with reckless abandon, but instead with financially incentivized forethought.
As for SEQR, the CP proposal is definitely skirting those standards. But ultimately, I think if the Mayor's Office, the DOT, the City Council and the State Legislature all review a proposal and are satisfied, that supersedes the need for SEQR compliance. It's tons more official review than the average SEQR-compliant project ever gets.
But in the interest of being thorough, careful, and environmentally responsible, the EIS will be carried out. True it's going to be tight before September 1st - I'm not sure how they'll get it in there. The bill says that some of the already completed traffic studies and public forums will fulfill EIS statistical and public outreach requirements.
The DOT was slammed in the Post last week for prematurely posting job openings for people to work on Congestion Pricing. But I can see why they're in such a hurry. If this thing gets approved, they're gonna need every day they have to work on that EIS.
The Mayor's Office and the DOT are the same thing essentially, so you can't count that as two separate "reviews." Also, the type of going over that the Council and State legislature will give a proposal like this falls far short of what an EIS would do. You're talking thousands and thousands and thousands of pages.