i wondered when this london idea would hit stateside. why am i not not surprized it was not in los angeles?  :laugh:

 

 

November 11, 2005

Driving in Manhattan? You Pay, Under One Idea

 

By SEWELL CHAN

It is an idea that has been successful in London, and is now being whispered in the ears of City Hall officials after months of behind-the-scenes work by the Partnership for New York City, the city's major business association: congestion pricing.

 

The idea is to charge drivers for entering the most heavily trafficked parts of Manhattan at the busiest times of the day. By creating a financial incentive to carpool or use mass transit, congestion pricing could smooth the flow of traffic, reduce delays, improve air quality and raise the speed of crawling buses.

 

 

link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/nyregion/11traffic.html?ei=5065&en=b5faf9c68b604428&ex=1132290000&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1131685246-As6Oii1quZT6/IeM0IoGUw&pagewanted=print

 

yow! you bet this topic is getting lots of blog commentary today, see the gothamist link below to read the replies:

 

 

 

 

While it seems unlikely a bill like this would ever get passed, but just the idea that the City Hall is considering some sort of toll for drivers to enter the city and create more congestion makes us excited. The NY Times looks at how various groups are looking at using congestion pricing in NYC to encourage people to use mass transit and carpools, versus driving their cars in and thereby promoting traffic, increasing cancer-causing agents, and slowing down buses. The Partnership for New York City, which is run by city business leaders, has been investigating the proposition for many months, and the ideas are still in the works (some highways would be free - FDR, West Side Highway - but driving in some parts of the city would be less expensive than others...and it's unclear whether city driver would have to pay a flat fee for keeping a car in a the city or get a discount versus commercial drivers) - read the article, it's all very fascinating stuff. This quote from Ernert Tollerson of the Partnership says it all:

 

"Is there an opportunity to create a congestion-relief zone that would help this global city? This is a city that wants to add tens of thousands of jobs, but we can't continue to build streets and roads. For the long-term growth of the city, we need demand-management tools."

The Bloomberg administration says this is not a part of its second term agenda, but you never know, now that he's in office. The article also notes that London has used congestion pricing with success (more from the BBC) and it's an idea that other U.S. cities like.

 

Congestion pricing is a big part of what Nobel Prize-winning economist William Vickrey studied. Vickrey won the Nobel in 1996 while teaching at Columbia...and then he died three days later while driving on the highway (those were high and low times in the econ department). Gothamist likes to think that he's smiling right now.

 

 

link:

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/11/best_city_hall.php#comments

 

move over london --- long rumored and talked about, now it's in the works here for real:

 

 

Apr 20, 2007 9:27 pm US/Eastern

 

Coming Real Soon: $8 To Enter Manhattan By Car

Bloomberg Ready To Fight Albany For Congestion Fee

 

Andrew Kirtzman

Reporting

 

(CBS) NEW YORK A controversial new plan is about to be implemented to improve the quality of life in New York City.

 

This weekend Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to introduce an $8 congestion fee for drivers who enter Manhattan below 86th Street.

 

On the city's traffic-clogged arteries Friday, Bloomberg was not a popular guy.

 

"Next thing he's gonna charge us to cross the street," one driver said.

 

Complaints like those echoed among drivers who'd heard that the mayor is about to propose tolls for vehicles entering Midtown Manhattan.

 

A mayoral panel has proposed charging motorists to enter Manhattan below 86th Street from 6 am to 6 p.m.

 

That charge would:

 

-- Include any bridge or tunnel tolls people already pay

 

-- Exempt drivers who bypass the business district on their way to another part of the city.

 

-- Exempt taxi drivers, and possibly give discounts for people who live and work in the zone.

 

Advocates said it's crucial for a city that's expected to add another million people in the next 20 years.

 

"Things here are gonna grind to a halt if something is not done to relieve the congestion on New York City's streets," said Noah Budnick of Transportation Alternatives.

 

Opposition has already formed in the boroughs outside of Manhattan, where some view Bloomberg as a Manhattan elitist.

 

Former Queens Councilman Walter McCaffrey represents a group opposed to the idea.

 

"Those individuals who are not that well to do are going to find they're being hit with a $5,000 a year tax," McCaffrey said.

 

This could set off a battle royale from here to Albany, where the legislature would have to approve the plan. The mayor will unveil details of it on Sunday when he delivers a speech on the future of New York City.

 

In that speech, the mayor is expected to outline an ambitious agenda for his final 32 months in office. He'll propose a new $7.5 billion freight tunnel under the Hudson River, and call for the construction of 250,000 new homes.

Also, video news segment follows the commercial:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=952695&cl=2449567&src=news

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_us/traffic_congestion_fee;_ylt=AiNOqA8QRJoTI.jYQnmO7kms0NUE

 

By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer

Fri Apr 20, 3:22 PM ET

 

NEW YORK - An idea of reducing traffic by charging motorists who drive into the heart of Manhattan got Mayor Michael Bloomberg's support Friday.

 

"Using economics to influence public behavior is something this country is built on — it's called capitalism," Bloomberg said. "Tax policy influences you to drill here and mine there, and grow this and live here and do that."

 

Back in January, the mayor, who also has a home in London, had said the congestion pricing system there did not appear to be working as well as expected.

 

London officials say charging drivers has helped relieve congestion, but the fee — equal to about $16 per trip — has gone up since its implementation in 2003. "I think their experience has been that people adjusted to the charges," Bloomberg said then.

 

When asked about Bloomberg's shift Friday, his spokesman Stu Loeser said the mayor's Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability has been researching the issue and other ideas.

 

"What's changed is we've been going through months of study; there's been cumulative tens of thousand of hours of work on this," Loeser said.

 

Some states and cities are already experimenting with congestion pricing on major highways, where drivers can choose the free lanes or those that carry a fee.

 

Implementing congestion pricing would have to be done by the state Legislature, and many lawmakers who represent the bedroom communities outside New York City would balk at the idea.

 

"It's up to the Legislature, but I'd fight like heck to make it," Bloomberg said.

 

The idea is unpopular with average New York voters, who said in a poll earlier this year that traffic was a problem but that they don't want more fees.

 

###

well the idea is about as popular with the locals as the olympics bid was.

 

that is, it's bloomie's pet project & it won't fly.

 

Do you know what that would do to 116, 125 & 168 Streets??

 

125 would be a parking lot, 168 street and the washington heights bridge would be over burdened.

I know it's not popular, but we have to start charging the true cost of driving to motorists.  As a motorist myself who has no choice but to drive to my workplace, if Ohio wanted to turn all of Ohio's interstates into toll roads, I would accept it. 

 

Driving is way over-subsidized.  It's sad that so many Americans think we should be able to get something for nothing.  We like to boast that we have the lowest tax burden of any industrialized nation, but it's coming at the cost of crumbling infrastructure and huge public debt. 

 

We all need to grow up and face reality.  If we want to live in a first-rate nation, we have to pay for it. When it comes to overall infrastructure quality in the US and the quality of our passenger transportation system, we have become a second-rate nation.

 

If it's up to the New York legislature, it may just get through.  Talk to "up-staters" almost anywhere in New York, and they hate the fact that most of their tax money ends up getting spent "down state", or at least that's their perception.  They'll probably like the idea of down-staters having to pay more of their fair share. 

 

I agree, all the interstates should be toll roads across the country.

Well said, Gildone.

Bloomberg Green Plan Needs 'Enormous' Study-NY Gov

 

ALBANY, New York - New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer said on Monday Mayor Michael Bloomberg's new green plan, which includes US$50 billion of spending on mass transit to help carry the city into 2030, requires "enormous analysis."

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Earth Day unveiled 127 proposals, including road congestion pricing, which swiftly drew intense opposition from some legislators and city councilors...

 

Story Date: 24/4/2007

 

Original link gone, article archived here:  http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41533/story.htm

 

 

 

from the June 14, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0614/p03s03-ussc.html

 

Jammed cities eye 'pay to drive'

New York and other major US cities are considering fees for those driving during rush hour.

By Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

 

New York

 

Are you stuck on the freeway and willing to pay almost anything to get moving again?

 

Some cities may give you the opportunity to reach into your wallet as part of an idea now reaching American shores.

 

The concept is simple: to cut down on bumper-to-bumper traffic and improve air quality, charge a fee to use the roads – or even enter the city – during rush hour.

 

Known as congestion pricing, the concept is favored by the US Department of Transportation, which is planning to help fund some of these efforts this summer. Nine cities – including such car-oriented cities as San Diego, Miami, and Dallas – are proposing a charge to use roads during rush hour. New York's is the most wide-sweeping – tacking on an $8 fee for cars and $21 for trucks to enter much of Manhattan.

 

Opponents call the proposal a regressive tax that hurts working people. And they worry about small businesses that count on commuters losing business.

 

Proponents of the system say it is a way to get more riders on mass-transit systems or at least in van or car pools. The model is London, which claims that such fees are now allowing traffic to flow more smoothly.

 

"The concept is certainly starting to spread," says Allison Hannon, a researcher at the Climate Group in New York, a nonprofit that tries to connect business and government to solve climate issues. "What happened is that London's Mayor Ken Livingstone and Oslo's mayor went out on a ledge and tried it, and it actually worked."

 

As almost anyone who drives in an urban area can attest, traffic jams don't seem to go away. In May 2005, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) at Texas A&M University found that congestion continued to grow in 85 regions it studied. Overall, traffic delays amounted to 3.7 billion hours in 2003, up from 700 million hours in 1982, the study found.

 

From an environmental standpoint, gridlocked traffic is also costly. Stalled cars have higher emissions than moving traffic, says Timothy Lomax of the TTI, who has been involved in urban-congestion studies for the past 20 years. "You can improve the emissions if you reduce the stop-and-go and move into a range of flow-and-go – say 30 to 40 miles per hour," says Mr. Lomax.

 

San Diego, in fact, has been charging commuters a congestion toll since 1997 to use special lanes of the I-15, the main inland north-south expressway. The toll itself changes, depending on the traffic, from 50 cents to as much as $8 if there is an emergency or a car breakdown. The users save an average of 10 to 15 minutes, but surveys show they think they save 30 minutes.

 

"The toll is dynamic. It has the ability to change every six minutes depending on the conditions," says Garry Bonelli, a spokesman for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which develops long-term transportation plans for the region.

 

Now, SANDAG, at a cost of $1.7 billion, is expanding the toll road from two to four lanes. And it will be 24 miles long, up from eight.

 

Two years ago, San Francisco discussed adding a fee to enter the city, but it quickly ran into political opposition. City agencies are still discussing the issue, says Howard Strassner of the San Francisco Sierra Club in an e-mail. But the city, he says, may have something better than congestion pricing: a 20 percent tax on top of very high parking fees.

 

New York's proposal may run into stiff political winds as well. The state legislature must approve any new taxes or fees, and Sheldon Silver, speaker of the House, has been ambivalent about the concept. However, he has said he might call a special session of the Assembly this summer.

 

"My sense is the speaker will tend to his members," says Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, which is largely made up of large businesses. "And if his members' concerns are fairly addressed, he will support it."

 

Some of those concerns were on display last week at a rally of an ad hoc group called the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free. State Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn complained the tax was unfair, "basically putting a tax on those who can't afford it." He called for more spending to alleviate traffic in the outer boroughs.

 

Queens Village resident Gabriella Krill thought the proposed tax would be unfair on seniors who already pay heavy taxes to live in the city. "Subways are hard – to go up and down stairs. Buses are hard to get out of," she said.

 

However, Ms. Wylde says the issue is too important to be sidetracked. Her office has put together briefing papers that show billions of dollars of lost business and thousands of lost jobs if nothing is done.

 

"If we don't do this now, it will never happen," she says. "And then New York will lose its leadership position."

 

Alison Snyder contributed to this report in New York.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Congestion fees: So how would it work?

(http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/427746,CST-NWS-pqanda14.article)

Chicago Sun-Times

June 14, 2007

 

Where else has it been done?

 

Singapore was the first city, London is the largest, and Stockholm launched a pilot program last year.

 

New York's legislature is considering an $8 fee on cars and $21 fee on trucks that drive in congested Lower Manhattan to raise money for public transportation projects. The fee would only apply on weekdays and during peak hours.

 

How does it work in London?

 

Fees for entering central London were originally 5 pounds, or $10. Now they're 8 pounds, or $16.

 

Cameras record traffic images and send them to a central processor that reads the license plates and cross-checks them against the list of vehicles that have purchased the daily congestion pass.

 

If you don't have the pass, a ticket is mailed to the person registered to the vehicle.

 

What has been the impact?

 

London traffic delays dropped more than 20 percent. Singapore and Stockholm also saw improved traffic flow during peak hours.

 

How would it work in Chicago?

 

The proposed fee would apply to the Central Business District, and proceeds would go to the CTA. But it's not clear how much fees would be and whether taxis and trucks would be exempt.

 

Monifa Thomas

 

 

VIEW FROM THE DRIVER'S SEAT

 

How would you feel about Chicago imposing a London-style congestion fee to ease traffic jams and reduce pollution?

 

"I don't like it. It is another tax. I don't like it at all." -- Carlos Meza, 42, home rehabber, Lake in the Hills.

 

"It doesn't make sense. Why do it? Who owns the Loop? It's not fair." -- April Haydock, 24, spokesmodel, Lincoln Square.

 

"I don't like it. It sounds like it might be a lot. It sounds unfair. I have to pay a fee to come to the city to visit?" -- Cheryl Patterson, 45, personal shopper, Gary.

 

"I think it is crazy. I think it is insane. They should properly fund CTA first. Then people would use it." -- Elizabeth Williams, German language teacher, 28, Lincoln Square.

 

 

 

 

July 2, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock

By KEN LIVINGSTONE

London

 

THE New York State Assembly ended its session on June 22 without reaching a consensus on Manhattan’s congestion pricing proposal — a delay that may cost New York City some $500 million in federal transportation money. Assembly members have voiced concerns about the economic impact of the program, the effect on traffic outside Manhattan and even the effectiveness of the idea itself.

 

Four years ago, London was engaged in a very similar debate. We now have the luxury of hindsight. While the two cities’ situations are not identical, they certainly have analogies and therefore, perhaps, the success of London’s program can shed light on the current debate in New York.

 

At that time, London’s business district was undergoing rapid growth, but it was at capacity in terms of traffic. Efforts to channel more cars into the city center simply led to ever lower traffic speeds, which in turn led to business losses and a decrease in quality of life. Simultaneously, carbon emissions were mounting because of the inefficiency of engine use.

 

In 2003, London put in place a £5 (about $9) a day congestion charge for all cars that entered the center city (the charge is now £8). This led to an immediate drop of 70,000 cars a day in the affected zone. Traffic congestion fell by almost 20 percent. Emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were cut by more than 15 percent.

 

The negative side effects predicted by opponents never materialized. The retail sector in the zone has seen increases in sales that have significantly exceeded the national average. London’s theater district, which largely falls within the zone, has been enjoying record audiences. People are still flocking to London — they’re simply doing so in more efficient and less polluting ways.

 

There has been a marked shift away from cars and into public transport and environmentally friendly modes of travel. There has been a 4 percent modal shift into use of public transport from private cars since 2000. Simultaneously, the number of bicycle journeys on London’s major roads has risen by 83 percent, to almost half a million a day. Cycling has become something of a boom industry in London, with improvement in health for those involved and substantial benefit for the environment.

 

This success had preconditions. In London, as will be the case in New York or any other city, an enhanced public transportation system was critical. To ensure readiness, we made significant upgrades to public transport. Our investment focused on enhancing London’s bus system, rather than the subway, because we needed to increase capacity in the quickest, most cost-effective way.

 

Specifications for a modern, more comfortable fleet were introduced, bus lanes were added, and more inspectors were put on to ensure buses ran at regular intervals. With London’s buses a more attractive alternative, the number of bus trips a day has risen to six million, an increase of two million from 2000 — with ridership growing most rapidly among the highest-paid social groups. In turn, this helped relieve pressure on the subway, ensuring it continued to run smoothly. Investment in public transport continues to this day, aided by the revenue from the congestion charge — the equivalent of some $200 million annually.

 

Like New York’s plan, London’s congestion program initially met with some skepticism. Before the program began, polls showed that public opinion was divided almost exactly evenly. Since then, opinion has shifted to 2-to-1 in favor.

 

The results have led us to expand the initial program. In February the existing congestion charging zone was extended westward, doubling its size. Traffic in the extended zone fell by 13 percent.

 

The next stage of congestion charging in London will be a move to emissions-based charging. This will be aimed at deterring vehicles with the highest carbon emissions, like sports utility vehicles, from entering the city center. The new program will impose a payment of £25 per day for such vehicles, as well as abolish the 90-percent exemption that their owners would receive if they were residents of the congestion charging zone. Incidentally, this charge for S.U.V.’s enjoys 3-to-1 popular support.

 

Is London’s success a guarantee that congestion charging will work in New York? Of course not. But it is an indicator that properly executed congestion pricing works, and works well. Singapore and Stockholm already operate such programs and other cities are examining them. Given the success of congestion charging in London, this is not surprising.

 

Ken Livingstone is the mayor of London.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/opinion/02livingstone.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Jul 2, 2007 On NY1 Now: News All Day Weather: Cool Start. High:76       

 

 

 

Transit 

 

Report: Congestion Pricing Fee Could Allow For Free Public Transit

 

June 28, 2007

 

The environmental group that's been pushing for a free public transit system said Thursday that if Mayor Michael Bloomberg doubled the congestion pricing fee, free subways and buses could be a reality.

 

The Institute for Rational Urban Mobility says if the city were to charge drivers $16 dollars to enter most of Manhattan at all times, there'd be enough revenue that the subways and buses could be free. The mayor wants to charge drivers $8.

 

The group says a $16 toll would bring about $3 billion in revenue – which would be enough to cover all transit fares paid in the city in a typical year.

 

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=5&aid=71191

 

What if a fee were placed on cars entering Cleveland's central business district? While we don't have congestion like London or New York City, we do have serious air quality problems -- severe enough that it dissuades manufacturers from expanding or relocating to Greater Cleveland. So, what if an $8 "air quality fee" were placed on all cars and light trucks (ie: SUVs) entering Cleveland's central business district?

 

Here's some rough estimates....

 

About 100,000 people work in the Cleveland CBD. Roughly 80 percent commute to it by car.

 

If the $8 fee were instituted, let's assume 20 percent of commuters shifted to transit. So 60,000 cars and light trucks entering the CBD 248 days (260 weekdays - minus an assumed five vacation days and seven federal holidays) per year x $8 is $119,040,000 annually. That, plus roughly 20,000 vehicles entering downtown each weekend day (probably a low figure but let's stick with it for sake of conservatism) is another $16,640,000 per year -- or, $135,680,000 total.

 

Take half of that for operating subsidy for expanded transit service to the Cleveland CBD and the other half to finance a bond issue to build the transit. How big of a bond issue? Roughly a $1 billion issue.

 

What could $1 billion buy?

 

> All of the NEORail commuter rail routes that made the final cut (CBD to Lorain, Akron/Canton, Aurora and Painesville).

> Extending the Waterfront Line to create a downtown LRT loop.

> Reroute the Red/Blue/Green lines via the Opportunity Corridor.

> Provide a BRT or streetcar in the West 25th/Pearl corridor.

 

Of course, this is just local funds. Perhaps some state or federal funds could be drawn to it. But I wouldn't count on much.

NYC Congestion Pricing Plan approved City Council.  Interesting that USDOT has offered $354 million in transit aid to the city  if the plan is approved by April 7 (it still has to go through the NY Legislature):

 

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/15713

This sucks.

 

$8 Traffic Fee for Manhattan Gets Nowhere

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

April 8, 2008

 

ALBANY — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s far-reaching plan to ease traffic in Manhattan died here on Monday in a closed conference room on the third floor of the Capitol.

 

Democratic members of the State Assembly held one final meeting to debate the merits of Mr. Bloomberg’s plan and found overwhelming and persistent opposition. The plan would have charged drivers $8 to enter a congestion zone in Manhattan south of 60th Street during peak hours.

 

Mr. Bloomberg and his supporters, including civic, labor and environmental organizations, viewed the proposal as a bold and essential step to help manage the city’s inexorable growth.

 

But the mayor’s plan was strongly opposed by a broad array of politicians from Queens, Brooklyn and New York’s suburbs, who viewed the proposed congestion fee as a regressive measure that overwhelmingly benefited affluent Manhattanites.

 

“The congestion pricing bill did not have anywhere near a majority of the Democratic conference, and will not be on the floor of the Assembly,” Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, said after the meeting.

 

The plan’s collapse was a severe blow to Mr. Bloomberg’s environmental agenda and political legacy. The mayor introduced his plan a year ago as the signature proposal of a 127-item program for sustainable city growth that helped raise his national profile. Without approval from Albany, the city now stands to lose about $354 million worth of federal money that would have financed the system for collecting the fee and helped to pay for new bus routes and other traffic mitigation measures.

 

After Mr. Silver announced the plan’s demise, a statement was released by Mary E. Peters, the federal transportation secretary, indicating that her department would now seek to distribute those funds to traffic-fighting proposals in other cities.

 

New York also hoped to use revenues from congestion pricing to finance billions of dollars in subway expansion and other improvements by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, money that must now come from somewhere else.

 

Assemblyman Mark S. Weprin, a Queens Democrat, said that in discussing the issue with his colleagues, “the word ‘elitist’ came up a number of times.” His constituents, Mr. Weprin said, almost uniformly opposed the measure, viewing it as a tax on their ability to move around their own city.

 

Mr. Weprin estimated that opinion among Assembly Democrats ran four to one against the plan. No formal vote was taken at the closed meeting.

 

Prospects for the bill returning any time soon appear dim.

 

It was the latest defeat for Mr. Bloomberg from Albany, which in 2005 dashed the mayor’s dreams of building a football stadium on the West Side and bringing the 2012 Olympics to New York.

 

The mayor has appeared increasingly frustrated with the situation in Albany in recent days and did not appear publicly after the measure’s defeat. He released an angry statement shortly after the rejection.

 

“It takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Every New Yorker has a right to know if the person they send to Albany was for or against better transit and cleaner air.”

 

But even in the Republican-controlled State Senate, the plan did not receive much consideration. Out of deference to Mr. Bloomberg, who has been an ally and financial patron of Senate Republicans, the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, pushed for a floor vote on the legislation Monday afternoon. But Senate Democrats refused to take the floor, forestalling any vote.

 

That move followed a year’s worth of cajoling and brinkmanship between opponents and supporters of the plan, which evolved significantly — but, it turned out, not significantly enough — from the version Mr. Bloomberg proposed last April.

 

Supporters ultimately agreed to shrink the zone in which the fees would apply, to the area south of 60th Street in Manhattan, instead of south of 86th Street. They also added a small charge on taxicab and limousine trips through the zone, as well as a tax credit for low-income residents.

 

But many issues remained unresolved. Critics also objected to the elimination of a sunset provision, which would have required the plan to win approval again after three years. City officials said that such a provision would have precluded long-term bond financing for capital improvement projects.

 

Mr. Silver, a frequent antagonist of Mr. Bloomberg’s who in 2005 blocked the mayor’s plan to redevelop the West Side railyards, pre-empted criticism that he was personally to blame for the plan’s defeat, saying that he favored some kind of congestion proposal but that the mayor’s plan simply lacked enough support to pass. “Let me be clear: If I were making the decision alone, I might have made a different decision,” Mr. Silver said.

 

Ultimately, the battle lines over the plan remained almost unchanged during the yearlong debate over the project, despite multiple rounds of public hearings, reams of studies and an aggressive lobbying campaign by Mr. Bloomberg and his allies. Indeed, many opponents said they resented the pressure and threats that they said emanated from Mr. Bloomberg’s side, including hints that the mayor would back primary candidates to run against politicians who opposed congestion pricing.

 

The mayor’s allies recently formed a political action committee to finance those campaigns.

 

Those efforts, supporters and opponents agreed, illustrated the gulf between Mr. Bloomberg and lawmakers in Albany, where the mayor sometimes seemed to miscalculate how far his power and prestige could carry him.

 

Many Democrats in the Legislature felt that the mayor’s demeanor in private meetings was condescending. Some opponents wondered at Mr. Bloomberg’s political strategy, noting that they hardly expected to be punished by their constituents for siding with them.

 

“I’d be very happy running for re-election letting everybody know that I was an advocate against congestion pricing,” said Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, a Queens Democrat.

 

Ultimately, some supporters said privately, the same qualities that liberated Mr. Bloomberg to propose such a far-reaching plan — his independence from established power-brokers and detachment from traditional politicking — are what doomed the plan to failure.

 

“It doesn’t really work up here, and it didn’t help it at all,” said Assemblyman William F. Boyland, Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat who opposed the plan.

 

Some Assembly Democrats said that by Monday, even many of the supporters of the plan had significant reservations about it. Debate had veered from the issues of traffic and pollution, they said, to advocates emphasizing the need to finance badly needed mass transit projects. That further alienated suburban officials, whose constituents would have borne much of the cost of the fees but reaped little benefit from those projects.

 

Reporting was contributed by Diane Cardwell, Danny Hakim, Trymaine Lee and Jeremy W. Peters.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/nyregion/08congest.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

Even the bitch was pissed about Albany's lack of action......

_______________

 

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking_news.shtml#Feature3-4-9

 

April 8, 2008

DOT's Peters: Congestion pricing "inevitable"

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters says she's "deeply" disappointed that the New York state legislature failed to give needed support to New York City's plan for "congestion pricing" to reduce vehicular traffic and strengthen public transit.

 

"New York's mounting traffic and congestion woes point to congestion pricing as an inevitable solution, even if not in the next few months or with the assistance of federal Urban Partnership dollars," said Peters in an April 7 statement.

 

New York had until noon on April 8 to qualify for $354 million in Urban Partnership funding to help implement Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to charge drivers an $8 fee to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street during peak traffic hours.

 

"Starting tomorrow [April 8], we will engage with many of the largest cities in the United States that have put forward ambitious traffic fighting plans to discuss how they could use this money to cut traffic, improve transit, and improve pollution," said Peters.

 

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York also issued a statement expressing regret that the congestion pricing plan had faltered in Albany. In addition to traffic that the lay may have diverted to MTA's trains and buses, the congestion fees paid by motorists would have gone top MTA to improve public transit.

 

Congestion pricing has been effectively used in London to reduce traffic in congestion zones, though it was initially unpopular, and has also proved to be a success in Singapore.

M.T.A. Shortfall Renews Talk of Congestion Pricing

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/nyregion/03mta.html?ex=1218427200&en=2ed0158472160abe&ei=5070&emc=eta1