Congestion Pricing Questions the Mayor Will Need to Answer

The proposal purported to reduce asthma, especially for children. However, many communities just outside of the congestion pricing zone have significant asthma rates and it is possible that those communities might have to contend with increased vehicular traffic as commuters driving into the city attempt to park in these neighborhoods outside of the zone.

From: NY State Assembly Member Deborah Glick To: A Constituent Who Supports Congestion Pricing Subject: Re: Support a Cleaner New York City Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007

Dear constituent,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding congestion pricing. I have long been concerned with traffic congestion in my district (which is among the worst in the city) and have been involved with a number of efforts to mitigate congestion. I have also been concerned with growing asthma rates in the city and well aware of how traffic and other environmental factors have exacerbated the problem.

For the past two months, there has been a general discussion of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal in the press. There have also been direct mail appeals urging New Yorkers to contact their state legislators, resulting in calls to my office advocating for "clean air," as well as calls against "congestion pricing." These disparate messages reflect the lack of clarity and specificity with which congestion pricing has been discussed.

Unfortunately, I have also been confronted with a dearth of information regarding the Mayor's proposal, as have my colleagues who were looking closely at the proposal and trying to get answers to very specific concerns about how the program would be implemented. Regrettably, there were too few answers from the City Administration about our legitimate concerns. It was because of the numerous questions that were raised, but not sufficiently answered, that the Assembly did not vote on congestion pricing. In fact, even the State Senate did not vote on the issue when they convened in Albany on July 16th supposedly with the understanding that a vote could be taken.

Though I am fully supportive of the need to reduce traffic congestion and improve our air quality, I cannot vote on legislation without a sufficient understanding of its impacts, particularly when it will substantially impact neighborhoods throughout New York City as well as the entire tri-state region. As a responsible legislator, I must look beyond press releases and public relations campaigns and vote on the merits of the actual legislation. Often, legislation purportedly aims to address an important issue, but the legislation as crafted is not the best way of doing so. I had too many unanswered questions and found too many flaws in the congestion pricing legislation to be supportive of it in the form that was presented to the Legislature by Mayor Bloomberg. While I appreciate the goals of congestion pricing, I do not appreciate the Mayor's effort to stampede the Legislature into a vote on congestion pricing without an appropriate vetting of the myriad issues generated by the proposal itself.

For example, the proposal purported to reduce asthma, especially for children. However, many communities just outside of the congestion pricing zone have significant asthma rates and it is possible that those communities might have to contend with increased vehicular traffic as commuters driving into the city attempt to park in these neighborhoods outside of the zone. So far, no environmental impact statement has been prepared to address this and other concerns. By embarking on such a dramatic change without this important review, the Legislature would set a very questionable and dangerous precedent. For many of us in the environmental and preservation movements, we rely heavily on the legal requirement for environmental impact statements. I will not act to undermine this critical tool used by communities to defend themselves against inappropriate actions and development threats. While I am not surprised that the City Administration has not been concerned with ensuring a proper environmental review, I have been disappointed that so many in the environmental movement were willing to abandon this essential process.

Furthermore, there are numerous issues raised but left unanswered by the Mayor's proposal, such as: Why create a new authority to receive the increased fines and new fees for entering the designated zone when we already have a mass transit authority? Will the money raised be used strictly for mass transit improvements? If there are exemptions from fees for taxis and the black car services, why aren't there exemptions for people who drive into the designated area specifically for chemotherapy or other regular serious medical treatment since they are unable to use mass transit? How will residents of the congestion zone be charged for moving their cars for alternate side parking or for leaving the city for the day?

While we all agree that traffic has become impossible and that the additional construction of so many buildings will only bring more people and congestion into Manhattan, there is no consensus on whether the proposal would reduce the congestion, or simply raise revenue. One aspect of the plan would allow for auto commuters who paid a toll to have that toll deducted from the congestion fee. For example, a New Jersey driver who pays a $6.00 toll to enter New York City would have that toll deducted from the $8.00 congestion fee, making the additional cost to New Jersey drivers $2.00 a day. Many legislators do not believe that this will discourage any drivers from driving their cars into the city or encourage them to take mass transit.

These are just a few of the issues for which there were no clear answers. In my humble opinion, it would be irresponsible to vote for any legislation that generated so many significant questions without getting any answers. The City Administration has in fact been irresponsible and disingenuous, because, after years of ignoring more simple congestion mitigation efforts, they are trying to rush through congestion pricing legislation with almost no study or debate. Among the non-legislative changes the City could have implemented are dramatically reducing the number and the abuse of City issued parking permits, enforcing existing laws about blocking the traffic box, and enforcing no standing restrictions, which, when violated, force trucks to double park in order to make deliveries. To illustrate, the estimated number of City parking permits is between 10,000 and 20,000. While there are many legitimate uses for these permits, many are misused at times and greater enforcement and perhaps a significant reduction in the number issued may be appropriate. The City has also just recently started to focus on promoting alternative modes of transportation, such as bike riding, and they have largely not been involved in efforts to promote mass transit.

While none of these strategies alone would solve New York's congestion problems, a comprehensive, broad-based review of all the strategies that New York City could employ to reduce congestion is sorely needed. Since many parts of our transit system are at capacity, we need to be certain that the facilities necessary for a shift to mass transportation are either in place, or substantially on their way to being a reality. For example, it is crucial that there be adequate parking near commuter rail stations and certain subway stations outside of Manhattan where there are few or no bus connections.

Instead of rushing through congestion pricing, a commission on congestion mitigation must be convened to examine all the possible options and combinations of options to best address New York City's congestion challenge. Accordingly, I believe that the Legislature was wise to pass a statute creating this commission and enabling us to draw down any funds that the federal government might award New York City. Interestingly, while the City Administration insisted that the Legislature must act immediately in order for us to receive $500 million in federal funds, it always seemed more than optimistic to assume that we would get this amount- the federal government had only a $1.2 billion funding pot from which it would give funding to 5 selected cities. While I wish we could get the lion's share of federal funds to address congestion, there is no evidence that the Bush administration planned to depart from their standard practice of awarding New York City much less than our deserved share of funds. In closing, I wish to thank you once again for contacting me on this critical issue of concern to all of us. Improving the health and quality of life for people living in neighborhoods plagued by congestion, ensuring better mass transit, and improving the environment have and will continue to be priorities for me. However, I believe we are on our way to determining the best possible strategies for addressing these challenges. If you would like to receive further legislative and policy updates regarding health and environmental issues such as congestion pricing, please respond accordingly to this email and we will email you periodic updates about these issues.

Sincerely, Deborah J. Glick Assemblymember