What I don’t want this to be is a he said/she said,” said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. “What I want you to understand is all I did is read the damn document. And that the press has gone out of its way from the beginning to report this in a way the mayor wants it reported, which has been fundamentally inaccurate.”
Since Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan to enact congestion pricing in Manhattan was announced in April, the Westchester Democrat has been leading the charge in the State Legislature to beat back what he calls a regressive tax on poor and middle-class New Yorkers. Bloomberg’s plan, as it was initially put forth, would charge drivers $8 and commercial vehicles $21 for entering Manhattan below 86th Street on weekdays during peak driving times. After the plan appeared to be dead in July, the State Legislature created a 17-member commission to study the merits and potential drawbacks of Bloomberg’s plan and others like it. The commission was a necessity for the city to stay in the running for the $536 million in federal funding Bloomberg had requested to enact the toll measures. Without a congestion charge, or even a proposal to consider a congestion charge down the line, that money would have been lost.
Last week, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) came through with the funding—though not nearly at the levels Bloomberg had requested. Instead, the city received $354 million in funding for transit improvements and technical upgrades should the State Legislature approve a congestion charge by the end of March 2008. But the devil is in the details, said Brodsky. In the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the city and the USDOT, the aforementioned “damn document,” it states several times that the money is certainly not guaranteed, and could be rescinded at a moment’s notice.
Brodsky points out that the second page of the MOU clearly states this, noting that the USDOT “reserves the right, in its sole discretion, not to fund the transportation projects (or any part thereof) described in this MOU or otherwise.” In a letter to USDOT Secretary Mary Peters sent following the funding announcement, Brodsky asked for a clarification on whether the MOU is a strong commitment or simply conditional. So far, there has been no response. Barring a clear commitment, Brodsky argues the legislature cannot even consider congestion pricing, since it requires an unambiguous commitment to move forward.
“Without the commitment, the commission can’t function,” he said.
More than just a new tax, Brodsky sees congestion pricing as the start of a slippery slope towards a government where one might pay for all services. “What’s next after we do congestion pricing?” asked Brodsky. “Are we going to do education pricing? Are we going to do park pricing? Central park gets crowded. What are we going to do, let people who can pay in?”
Such market-based solutions are typically the domain of right-wing Republicans, said Brodsky, and he’s surprised that New York liberals have rushed to embrace those principles. “Progressives, some progressives, have unthinkingly rushed into the arms of the Bush administration. This adoption of a pricing mechanism so counters everything that progressives ought to stand for that I’ve been surprised by it,” he said. “If you can afford something, you can have access to it. If you can afford Midtown, you can go. If you can’t, you can’t go.”
The details of congestion pricing have shown a tendency to shift in recent weeks, shifts that lend credence to Brodsky’s demand for a strong commitment. The $356 million is still a significant grant, but is much less than the $500 million Bloomberg and other plan supporters has promised. And passing a congestion pricing plan was supposed to keep MTA subway and bus fares from rising according to Bloomberg. Yet the MTA is right now considering a 6.5 percent increase.
But the creation of the commission and the award of the USDOT grant have both been seen as major victories for Bloomberg, and as signs that his congestion plan will eventually pass. However, supporters of the plan have warned that a majority of state legislators still oppose the proposal, and that more work needs to be done to bring them on board.
Will Bloomberg’s plan eventually be enacted? Brodsky says speculation is premature, especially without a straightforward promise to fund the program from the USDOT. “I have no idea, because we don’t have enough information,” said Brodsky. “We’re at the beginning of
the process.”
Since Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan to enact congestion pricing in Manhattan was announced in April, the Westchester Democrat has been leading the charge in the State Legislature to beat back what he calls a regressive tax on poor and middle-class New Yorkers. Bloomberg’s plan, as it was initially put forth, would charge drivers $8 and commercial vehicles $21 for entering Manhattan below 86th Street on weekdays during peak driving times. After the plan appeared to be dead in July, the State Legislature created a 17-member commission to study the merits and potential drawbacks of Bloomberg’s plan and others like it. The commission was a necessity for the city to stay in the running for the $536 million in federal funding Bloomberg had requested to enact the toll measures. Without a congestion charge, or even a proposal to consider a congestion charge down the line, that money would have been lost.
Last week, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) came through with the funding—though not nearly at the levels Bloomberg had requested. Instead, the city received $354 million in funding for transit improvements and technical upgrades should the State Legislature approve a congestion charge by the end of March 2008. But the devil is in the details, said Brodsky. In the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the city and the USDOT, the aforementioned “damn document,” it states several times that the money is certainly not guaranteed, and could be rescinded at a moment’s notice.
Brodsky points out that the second page of the MOU clearly states this, noting that the USDOT “reserves the right, in its sole discretion, not to fund the transportation projects (or any part thereof) described in this MOU or otherwise.” In a letter to USDOT Secretary Mary Peters sent following the funding announcement, Brodsky asked for a clarification on whether the MOU is a strong commitment or simply conditional. So far, there has been no response. Barring a clear commitment, Brodsky argues the legislature cannot even consider congestion pricing, since it requires an unambiguous commitment to move forward.
“Without the commitment, the commission can’t function,” he said.
More than just a new tax, Brodsky sees congestion pricing as the start of a slippery slope towards a government where one might pay for all services. “What’s next after we do congestion pricing?” asked Brodsky. “Are we going to do education pricing? Are we going to do park pricing? Central park gets crowded. What are we going to do, let people who can pay in?”
Such market-based solutions are typically the domain of right-wing Republicans, said Brodsky, and he’s surprised that New York liberals have rushed to embrace those principles. “Progressives, some progressives, have unthinkingly rushed into the arms of the Bush administration. This adoption of a pricing mechanism so counters everything that progressives ought to stand for that I’ve been surprised by it,” he said. “If you can afford something, you can have access to it. If you can afford Midtown, you can go. If you can’t, you can’t go.”
The details of congestion pricing have shown a tendency to shift in recent weeks, shifts that lend credence to Brodsky’s demand for a strong commitment. The $356 million is still a significant grant, but is much less than the $500 million Bloomberg and other plan supporters has promised. And passing a congestion pricing plan was supposed to keep MTA subway and bus fares from rising according to Bloomberg. Yet the MTA is right now considering a 6.5 percent increase.
But the creation of the commission and the award of the USDOT grant have both been seen as major victories for Bloomberg, and as signs that his congestion plan will eventually pass. However, supporters of the plan have warned that a majority of state legislators still oppose the proposal, and that more work needs to be done to bring them on board.
Will Bloomberg’s plan eventually be enacted? Brodsky says speculation is premature, especially without a straightforward promise to fund the program from the USDOT. “I have no idea, because we don’t have enough information,” said Brodsky. “We’re at the beginning of
the process.”
