This morning’s Crain's Breakfast gave Mayor Bloomberg a chance to make a final push for his congestion pricing plan before the March 31 deadline, when the NYS Legislature must either approve the plan or lose $354 million in federal transportation funding.
Bloomberg’s speech was effective: after laying out the costs of traffic in Manhattan’s central business district – an estimated $13 billion in lost time and fuel, reduced business productivity, increased emissions of carbon monoxide (asthma) and carbon dioxide (global warming) – the Mayor addressed four criticisms of his plan. He argued that: a) congestion pricing fees will raise significant revenue specifically for mass transit improvements (estimated that the revenue stream would bond out to $4.2 billion, and that without this stream MTA capital investments will require again raising fares) b) congestion pricing won’t create parking lots on the boundaries of the central business district (no parking spaces in these neighborhoods anyway) c) congestion pricing scheme is not regressive (the small minority of New Yorkers who drive to work are on average well above median income d) exemption of congestion fees for New Jersey drivers is reasonable since they already pay $8 tolls to the Port Authority to get to Manhattan, and half of that money goes toward New York transportation needs. Bloomberg concluded by noting that he was meeting with Patterson and other officials in Albany this afternoon to urge action on his plan.
Bloomberg was followed by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who urged approval of congestion fees, noted their success in other cities, and made a somewhat confused observation about the number of hours NYC residents spend in traffic each year (either than the average resident spends 49 hours a year in traffic (which seems low), or that congestion fees would reduce time per resident spent in traffic by 49 hours).
In the Q&A with journalist Bloomberg gave feisty responses, describing an objection by Congressman Weiner to congestion fees as “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” (Weiner argues that congestion pricing will have no benefits, because whatever money NYC raises through fees will be offset by declines in federal transportation grants at the demand of anti-New York Republicans. Bloomberg responded that – it is Weiner’s job to help secure such funds, Democrats control Congress, and by Weiner’s logic New York City should eliminate all taxes and wait for federal money to fill the void).
In response to a question, Bloomberg acknowledged that a logistically easier way to reduce Manhattan congestion and raise revenue for mass transit would be to simply place tolls on East River bridges. He explained his reluctance to pursue this strategy by noting that “toll politics are extremely difficult”, but suggested that in the city’s gloomier economic climate citizens might become more open to formerly taboo revenue-raising measures.
All in all a good breakfast – let's hope its message was heard in Albany. Not only is Bloomberg's congestion plan strong on the merits, it represents a crucial test of New York elected officials' willingness to embrace market-based solutions to public problems. When people drive into Manhattan's central business district at peak hours they are using a scarce public resource, not to mention causing harm to others in the forms of delayed travel and polluted air; why souldn't drivers be forced to pay for this privilege?
