Machiavelli meets the Big Apple

Ten reasons NYC's congestion pricing plan went belly up

Posted by Charles Komanoff (Guest Contributor) at 10:58 PM on 07 Apr 2008

Albany strikes again: congestion pricing -- the smartest urban-transportation idea since the subway -- has been buried by the professional morticians of the New York State legislature, led by ~~Chief Ghoul~~ Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

As previously reported, the pricing plan, proposed a year ago by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and subsequently improved by a 17-member state-mandated commission, would have charged an $8 entry fee on cars driven into Manhattan's central business district (CBD) during 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. on weekdays. Benefits included an annual $500 million revenue stream for mass transit (sufficient to bond at least $5 billion in capital improvements), a solid if unspectacular drop in traffic gridlock and pollution, and, perhaps most significantly, a first step toward knocking the automobile off its privileged perch atop the New York street pyramid. Not to mention establishing the principle that safeguarding "the commons" -- our air, water and public space -- requires that we exact from ourselves a commensurate price for uses that damage or deplete it.

Congestion pricing was backed by an unusually broad coalition of labor, business, enviros (the full spectrum from EJ to Big Green) and civic associations. Yet neither this broad-spectrum support nor the plan's extraordinary vetting over the past 12 months deterred legislators from both parties from citing "unanswered questions" and assailing bogus inequities.

Calling today "a sad day for New Yorkers and New York City" and noting federal support for congestion pricing, Mayor Bloomberg blasted the legislature, stating that, "Even Washington, which most Americans agree is completely dysfunctional, is more willing to try new approaches to longstanding problems than our elected officials in the State Assembly."

With so much going for it, what killed the plan? There will be time later for sober postmortems, but for now, here's my shoot-from-the-hip Top 10 list of what felled congestion pricing in NYC:

10. Misplaced emphasis on climate: Hitching congestion pricing to climate protection, even in part, was disingenuous. The anticipated traffic reductions would have eliminated no more than 1% of NYC's CO2. The emphasis should have been on cutting the scourge of traffic, whose theft of time, sanity, and safety from New Yorkers outweighs the climate damage from CBD-bound tailpipes by a couple of orders of magnitude.

9. Brodsky: The stream of counterfactual arguments from Richard Brodsky, a glib but savvy Democratic Assemblymember from suburban Westchester, was almost farcical. But his faux-populist screeds had an impact on public opinion. Bloomberg should have sat down with Brodsky, if only to be able to say afterwards that congestion pricing's opponents were impervious to reason.

8. Spitzer fiasco: The stunning demise of "Client 9" last month didn't just sabotage Bloomberg's Albany strategy. It sucked huge amounts of oxygen out of the legislative room just when the debate needed to begin in earnest.

7. Tepid Manhattan: Many city and state reps from Manhattan -- where fewer than one-quarter of households own a car -- tendered only lukewarm support, if that. Their fence-straddling made it harder to win support in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.

6. Crane collapse: A spectacular construction accident in mid-March destroyed a townhouse and killed seven people on Manhattan's East Side, focusing public attention -- and outrage -- over unbridled development, and reinforcing the rap on congestion pricing as a Bloombergian tool to remove the poor and weak from the city.

5. Jersey blues: Supporters never fielded a convincing answer to the exaggerated complaint that the toll rate structure would let drivers crossing the Hudson River into Manhattan get off scot-free. A last-minute deal to invest bi-state Port Authority tolls in NYC transit provoked threats of a lawsuit, undermining the pricing bill's credibility in the crucial final days.

4. Misplaced emphasis on Manhattan: Most of the reduction in traffic from congestion pricing would have taken place "upstream" of the charging zone. Inexplicably, City Hall underplayed this, feeding the perception that the benefits would be confined to Manhattan, and making it harder for outer-borough reps to line up in support.

3. Bloomberg: The mayor gets credit for a visionary idea but a failing grade for execution. The truism that New York politics demands personal engagement applied in spades to this mayor and this plan, both of which have their imperious sides. A groundswell of support to pull along a majority of legislators would have required far more engagement than Mayor Bloomberg offered.

2. Too few benefits: The plan's promised benefits seemed surprisingly diffuse. Perhaps paradoxically, a steeper congestion fee, say $12, used to pay for free transit buses citywide, would have generated more grassroots support without inciting much more opposition.

1. Machiavelli's dictum: "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand," Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, "than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things ... the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new." When pricing advocates return with a new plan -- perhaps a variant of the Kheel Plan -- we will do well to take this dictum to heart.

For story: Machiavelli meets the Big Apple
18 Comments | Post a Comment

Machiavelli

Agnello che sono, I suspect that NYC pols know all about Machiavelli.

Not from reading him, but intuitively, and through experience.

Numbers 7 and 4 are most important, IMHO. This deal should have been designed and sold so as to benefit the entire metropolitan area.

As for Number 3: I would not wish to blame Michael Bloomberg too strongly. But it is a lesson for all of us, going into November and beyond: the politician may be willing and capable, but there has to be a serious negotiation/education/enlightenment/epiphany between him/her and his/her advisors.

As for Number 5: NYC's mistrust of New Jersey is positively medievaloid, sort of like the traditional hostility between Florence and Siena. In fact, some New Jersey thinkers are the country's leaders on some green issues, and we New Yorkers should shut up and listen for a change, instead of making fun of their haircuts and their Barcalounges.

I do not see that 6 and 8, the crane collapse and Client 9, had much to do with anything.

But, whatever we may think about Spitzer's downfall (to say nothing about the room rates he was willing to put out), it is perhaps not all that meaningful, but anyway not all that promising, that David Paterson did not thrust himself into this business and take charge.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 2:38 AM on 08 Apr 2008

New York Times

Has a spot on editorial, placing the blame on the New York Assembly in general and Speaker Mr Silver in particular. "Unworthy of his office" the NYT writes about Mr Silver.

Mr. Silver does it again
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08tue2.html?_r= ...

by josullivan58 at 6:16 AM on 08 Apr 2008

ack

Sorry to hear it, Charles. Thanks for the heroic effort, though.

The top ten list is helpful, though, and should act as a list of pointers for other cities or future leaders of NYS when they get serious on this topic.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 6:44 AM on 08 Apr 2008

Congestion pricing

Some of Komanoff's explanations for the congestion pricing failure are valid. But I think he let the general public off the hook. Having just received a posting about a truckers' protest over high fuel prices, and hearing repeated complaints about high gasoline prices, all blamed on the rapacious oil companies (which are in fact raking in profits because Americans won't curb their oil appetite voluntarily), it is clear that Americans care little about the environment and want cheap energy and cheap goods, whatever the cost. Nothing but a real depression will give them a wake-up call. No political leader will stick her neck out to support something like carbon taxes, much less congestion fees. We are stuck on the same suicidal page as China and India because higher energy and goods prices will put the brakes on the lethal growth economy and overconsumption. In the end, growth trumps not just sanity but survival. The global warming apocalypse, if we are lucky, will come sooner rather than later. That' s all folks!

by lorna salzman at 7:14 AM on 08 Apr 2008

Why not try tolls on the East River Bridges?

What's the next move of anti-congestion advocates? How about working to add tolls on the East River bridges? The Hudson River crossings weren't going to add much revenue and deterrence anyway, since Bloomberg plan anyway was going to refund most of the Jersey bridge tolls to drivers. That just leaves unmolested the drivers coming in through FDR and Hudson Pkway, or city streets. OK it's not perfect, but it might be easier to get done politically....

by pliberman at 7:16 AM on 08 Apr 2008

Why did Albany have a say?

Did London need to ask anybody before they implemented their congestion pricing? Why did NYC have to go to Albany anyway? -- this is an informational question partly, it always amazed me while living in NYC that NYC had to go to Albany for all kinds of approvals. Maybe congestion pricing only happens in cities that have control over their own streets.

And why was more transit funding from the Federal Government dependent on congestion pricing?

by Jon Rynn at 8:13 AM on 08 Apr 2008

congestion pricing plan

i have a better idea. move all the rich people out of manhattan and bring back the poor people. that'll get rid of the cars and bring a little more soul back into the city!

no, really, i think you're right on, Charles, for the reasons why the pricing plan didn't go through. maybe if public transport like the lirr were more reliable, people would be more willing to relinquish their cars. i know, i'm dreaming!

The Groovy Mind

Make a difference with your groovy mind!

by The Groovy Mind at 8:16 AM on 08 Apr 2008

Climate

I don't think the climate argument is as irrelevant as described above. Even a 1% drop is a significant contribution, especially in a city that already has relatively low per-capita emissions.

Furthermore, the de-emphasizing of private cars as a mode of transport might help to guide future infrastructure development towards more sustainable options.

a sibilant intake of breath

by sindark at 8:33 AM on 08 Apr 2008

Who Failed Congestion Pricing?

There's much to be said for Komanoff's list, but let me add another item. When the MTA voted to increase fares for subway and bus riders in December 2007, it promised to make mass transit life a bit easier by adding more frequent service on several subway lines, creating a new bus line from the Lower East Side and extending Manhattan-bound Brooklyn buses.

But just last month, the MTA reneged on these commitments. The timing could not have been worse for shredding the credibility of the Mayor's promise to improve mass transit at the cost of paying a congestion pricing fee. What was the MTA thinking!

by NancyatSallan at 12:10 PM on 08 Apr 2008

Mr. Komanof's List

After working with Mr. Komanoff for years on issues as varied as closing Indian Point, my authorship of New York's Clean Air Act, Environmental Bond Act and most recently my efforts to enact a carbon tax in New York, it was interesting to read his analysis of my record and persona. The many principled and practical reasons that the Mayor's plan failed should be examined, including its evisceration of SEQRA, a precedent that will surely come back to haunt us. Mr. Komanoff did leave one fundamental reason for the failure off his list. The repeated contemptuous and ad hominem attacks on those who did not support congestion pricing backfired and caused many legislators to believe that vitriol and threats were the tools of those who would not reason and debate. The Mayor, and many of his allies, consistently refuse to recognize that people who oppose congestion pricing can do so because they believe that pricing mechanisms are not the way to solve social problems, and that ability-to-pay should not govern access to public places. Our objections are principled and deeply felt, even if we are wrong. As for the name-calling and other personal attacks, they diminish the public debate and, perhaps, those who engage in them. So, for the record, as to the charges of being counterfactual, glib and savvy, an author of faux-populist screeds, and being impervious to reason,...not guilty. Surely we can disagree on important issues without attacking each others' motives. We'll see.

Richard Brodsky

by ktsj1981 at 2:00 PM on 08 Apr 2008

Questions for Mr. Brodsky

Did you propose, or do you see, any other ways to cut down on car use in NYC, outside of congestion pricing?
Is there some other way for NYC to get the matching funds for mass transit from the Federal government, other than congestion pricing?

by Jon Rynn at 2:16 PM on 08 Apr 2008

Answers

The Assemblyman has asked me to respond to your two questions.

The Assemblyman has proposed legislation (A.10198) to crack down on traffic violations (block-the-box, illegal parking), reduce the illegal use of parking placards, and raise fares on both taxis and black cars (the largest source of congestion) to raise funds and encourage the use of public transportation. He also supports "the millionares tax" which would raise significant funds for transporation and he's proposed a carbon tax. These measures will significantly reduce congestion and raise money for transporation without adding another burden to the middle class.
The guarantee of federal funding is a myth. If you look at the MOU, it states that the federal government is not legally bound to give New York the $354 million, even with the passage of congestion pricing. Federal funding should always be applied for, but should not be the sole reason to pass flawed legislation.

Best Wishes,

Christopher Valens
Communications Director
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky

by ktsj1981 at 2:43 PM on 08 Apr 2008

Komanoff Reply to Brodsky

I thank all of the commenters. I reply here to Assemblymember Brodsky and hope to address other comments later.

The congestion pricing bill specified a 3-year pilot project and thus would not have undermined SEQRA (the State Environmental Quality Review Act).
I and other bill proponents agree w/ Mr. Brodsky that ability to pay should never determine access to public spaces. Motor vehicle access to hyper-congested areas is an altogether different matter. Where each additional vehicle creates an estimated $40 in delay costs (my calculation), an $8 per-vehicle charge will expand, not constrict, public access by improving bus speeds, enhancing cycling and walking, and funding transit.
I have held Mr. Brodsky in high regard during his entire career (we are contemporaries). While he is entitled to his objections to congestion pricing on asserted grounds of principle, he must expect pointed rebuttal when his claims are patently false, e.g., his repeated insistence that congestion pricing in NYC would be regressive. Mr. Brodsky's Manhattan-bound drive-to-work constituents earn on average $176,231 annually -- the highest of any New York county in the metropolitan area, according to Transportation Alternatives. A more comprehensive rebuttal on this point is here.
No one is attacking Mr. Brodsky's motives. As for name-calling, I advertised up front that my post was shoot-from-the-hip. Having prevailed over congestion pricing advocates, Brodsky could absorb a few barbs from the vanquished, no?

Charles www.komanoff.net

by Charles Komanoff at 2:45 PM on 08 Apr 2008

Thanks for the answers...

...and perhaps Charles could answer this better, or point to past writing, but perhaps there are other ways to reduce congestion? (that hopefully would not involve the state): do a "Netherlands" and make certain streets (Broadway?) car-free on Sundays and available for bikes; a car-free 42nd street; expand bike lanes (is there one on 9th avenue now) with barriers -- I'm sure you've thought of many more.

While I appreciate Mr. Brodsky's anti-congestion suggestions, they don't seem to me to be leading toward a substantial de-automobile-ification of, at least, parts of midtown (and raising taxi fares can hit middle class people also), so it seems to me that we need to think "outside the box" a little more.

by Jon Rynn at 3:10 PM on 08 Apr 2008

More Komanoff Replies

(in reverse order)

To Jon Rynn and Brodsky Staffer Chris Valens -- Brodsky's "ideas" for cutting traffic are the same old same old. Parking crackdown? Pu-leeze, it'll gore Brodsky's beleaguered drivers but expensively, leaving little or no net revenue. Stop "placard abuse"? By all means, but the abuse is mostly localized, and new trips attracted by the freed-up spaces will quickly fill up the roads. Raise fees on taxis and livery cars? Of course, but the revenues are a drop in the bucket. A carbon tax? Hey, I co-founded and co-direct the Carbon Tax Center, but, as I tried to tell Brodsky last year, a carbon tax isn't the right tool for the job. To cut traffic in (and into) Manhattan, charge a fee to drive into Manhattan -- as London and Stockholm now do successfully. Duh ... why must we keep arguing this? Jon, as for your bike lane etc. ideas, they're all good, but politically they can happen on a large scale only after (or alongside) cutting traffic demand. You also asked why Albany had to approve, and what was the federal funds tie-in? No time to elaborate, sorry, but trust me, that's the universe we operate in.

Sindark -- I meant to say that the CO2 reductions from congestion pricing are politically irrelevant. For my "two orders of magnitude" figure, see the Kheel Report, pp. 30-31.

pliberman -- Non-tolled vehicles entering the CBD from the North 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. now outnumber those entering via the East River (200,000 to 160,000). And E. Riv tolls alone are politically a non-starter due to the same "geographical parity" canard I cited in my "Jersey Blues" point (#5).

The rest of you (especially Nancy & Lorna, and most of Caniscandida -- Bravo!

PS -- If Brodsky wants a sample of real invective, he should read Michael J. Smith's takedown of "stercoraceous Assembly Democrats," Dems to NYC: Drop Dead.

Charles www.komanoff.net

by Charles Komanoff at 6:16 PM on 08 Apr 2008

Charles --

my original reaction to the news was that NYC should seceed from New York. But yeah, I know...

by Jon Rynn at 6:33 PM on 08 Apr 2008

Response to Mr. Komanoff

Mr. Komanoff's first bullet is not true. The bill did not provide for a pilot. Congestion pricing would have been a permanent program. Congestion pricing approved prior to an enviornmental analysis is a terrible precedent to set.

Of course congestion pricing is regressive. To sight Mr. Komanoff's examples, Mr. Brodsky's constituents, with a larger income, were largely excused from paying the congestion fee.

Readers will decide for themselves if Mr. Komanoff attacked Mr. Brodsky personally.

Best Wishes,

Christopher Valens
Communications Director
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky

by ktsj1981 at 9:25 AM on 09 Apr 2008

"Regressive"? What's That?

NY State Assemblymember Richard Brodsky -- the diabolically effective public face of the forces that this week killed traffic relief for NYC -- informs us (through a staff member): "Of course congestion pricing is regressive."

Hello? Here's what the City's premier transportation statistician, Bruce Schaller, found in his comprehensive 2007 report on NYC travel data, City in Flux:

"Auto commuters have higher incomes than transit riders.

"Among Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island residents who work in Manhattan, auto commuters earn 32% more than subway commuters and 15% more than bus commuters. [2000 Census data]
"Auto commuters living in Manhattan earn 20% more than bus commuters and 18% more than subway commuters.
"Similar earnings gaps are seen among residents of outlying areas of the outer boroughs.
"Among commuters from outlying parts of the city that lack direct subway access, auto commuters earn 35% more than do subway commuters."

When did c.p. opponents decide that facts don't matter?

Friends, I'm trying to treat Brodsky relationally -- he's a political force in NY State, and clearly any future initiative to fund transit and reclaim city streets from cars will have to bring him on board. But there needs to be some regard for the facts, no?

As for Brodsky's aide's other canard, "Congestion pricing approved prior to an environmental analysis is a terrible precedent." Folks, the 17-member Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission (on which Brodsky served) did an extraordinary amount of careful environmental review in the past six months. Commission staff fully vetted the "official" plan and exhaustively analyzed alternatives. It's hard to imagine what additional review might have been necessary, and what further facts it could have provided (let alone whether Mr. Brodsky would have considered them).

No, the "environmental review" argument is just another fig leaf with which opponents of congestion pricing can cloak their decision to continue giving away the most precious resource in NYC -- our streetscape -- to drivers, and to condemn another generation of New Yorkers to incessant, damaging, spirit-destroying traffic.

Charles www.komanoff.net

by Charles Komanoff at 1:44 PM on 09 Apr 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.