New Congestion Pricing Plan, Same Jeffrey Dinowitz

The recommendation of a modified congestion pricing plan put forth last week by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission has elicited another editorial from Bronx Assembly Member Jeffrey Dinowitz. Tellingly, the piece, from this week’s Riverdale Press, starts off with talking points that fellow Assembly Member Richard Brodsky and "Keep NYC Dinosaur.jpgCongestion Tax Free" spokesman Walter McCaffrey have repeated again and again since the TCMC released its recommendation report:

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, whose job it was to
evaluate Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, has
succeeded in only making a bad plan worse.

… it seems this new version has raised more questions than it has answered.

But rather than raising more questions, Dinowitz, for the most part, simply restates the same asked-and-answered arguments we’ve come to know by heart. Still, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we thought we’d answer them again, one by one, for old time’s sake.

Who could support a plan that creates a regressive tax on middle-class and working people from the Bronx and the outer boroughs while giving an exemption to drivers from New Jersey who are more likely to be able to afford such a tax?

According to census data, less than five percent of New Yorkers drive into Manhattan’s central business district for work. An analysis by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and the Pratt Center for Community Development shows that in all but one state Assembly district in the city, households with a vehicle are 50 percent wealthier than those without. In nearly half of the districts — including Dinowitz’s — average income is twice as high. So actual figures suggest that the popular "regressive tax" cry is so much faux-populist bluster. Further, nearly all of the "middle-class and working people" Dinowitz and other pricing opponents claim to be speaking up for are now relying on a transit system that will benefit from congestion pricing.

As for the toll credit "exemption," New Jersey drivers would pay $8 to enter the CBD, same as everyone else, even if the money doesn’t go into the same pot. Are New Jerseyans really "more likely to be able to afford" a fee than New Yorkers? If so, Dinowitz offers no data to back the claim. Even if he did, the argument itself is a red herring intended to put New Yorkers on defense against "the other" — just as Dinowitz and his fellow pricing opponents have tried to cast the "Manhattan elite" as the beneficiaries of a plan designed mainly to improve access to Manhattan from outside the borough.

Also among my chief concerns is the fact that there have been no assurances that the money generated from the plan will actually be spent on improving mass transit.

Dinowitz must have missed out on the opportunity to get with McCaffrey and City Council Member David Weprin when they called a January press conference to raise this same issue. Thing is, state and city electeds were already working on a "lock box" to secure pricing revenues for transit, and the TCMC plan includes such a "dedicated transit account." Has Assemblyman Dinowitz actually read the commission recommendation?

There is no guarantee that the revenues generated by the plan will be as much as the city is claiming, and there is also no guarantee that the expenses involved in setting up and running this project won’t be even more costly than they expect.

This is technically true, but the same can be said of any government plan — or any business model, for that matter. What is known is the cost of doing nothing would be catastrophic for the MTA. Just ask Elliot Sander.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that in the initial MTA proposal, there was not a single improvement recommended for mass transit in the western half of the Bronx.

Though the city says there will be increased service on the 1 train and funding for Bus Rapid Transit service on Fordham Road, and there are references in PlaNYC to making better use of Metro-North and exploring new ferry service, Dinowitz has a point here. But instead of expending so much effort assailing a plan that would fund improvements to transit infrastructure that almost fifty percent of his constituents depend on, perhaps he could use his position as a state lawmaker to expedite and augment those upgrades. Of course, if the relative lack of transit options in the western Bronx mattered all that much to him, he probably would have been doing that already.

To make matters worse, it is shocking that the city has not done an environmental study for a project of this magnitude. There is no way of knowing, for example, if this plan will actually result in cleaner air for Manhattan or, even worse, perhaps more pollution for the residents of the Bronx.

Again, the commission report includes a recommendation for environmental monitoring to begin as soon as the plan is implemented, with adjustments to be made as needed. This is an especially spurious argument, since Dinowitz and other pricing foes would certainly shred any preemptive environmental study that didn’t back up their position, just as they have criticized the TCMC process, which itself was initiated after complaints that the mayor’s original plan was being forced through Albany. And what do you know, a revised plan approved by 13 members of a 17-member bi-partisan commission after months of public hearings isn’t good enough either.

There is the very real possibility that commuters will begin using the outer boroughs as a parking lot to avoid paying the congestion pricing fee.

Surely Dinowitz is aware that the city plans to institute residential parking permits to discourage park-and-ride activity. He must know that DOT has, for the last two weeks, held
neighborhood parking workshops in areas that would border the pricing
zone to gather public input on same, and that the pricing plan recommended by the commission includes an RPP provision. And he must know, if he’s done his homework, that the "edge effect" is a generally discredited phenomena that has not proven a problem in cities where congestion pricing is in place. In fact, research by the TCMC shows that congestion in border neighborhoods would actually decrease with pricing in effect. But reality-based evidence and research would not serve Dinowitz’s purpose nearly as well as another inflammatory broadside.

Among some of the commission’s other faults in their revised plan is the fact that the West Side Highway and FDR Drive will now be included in the congestion pricing zone so that someone driving from Bronx to Brooklyn would have to pay the fee, and that surcharges will be added to passengers in taxi cabs.

The commission’s recommendation to expand the cordon to include the West Side Highway and FDR Drive is indeed new, and since Dinowitz is opposed to the concept of congestion pricing it makes sense that he would be against broadening the plan’s scope — though he gives no credit to the commission for recommending the zone’s northern border be moved from 86th to 60th Street. As for taxi surcharges, in September Dinowitz complained that taxis and car services would be exempt, offering further confirmation that no matter how many times congestion pricing is reviewed, discussed and altered, the assemblyman and his cohorts will never be satisfied, and the possibility of yet another volley of hackneyed half-truths and outright obfuscations will always be as close as the next news cycle.

  • There is no way of knowing, for example, if this plan will actually result in cleaner air for Manhattan or, even worse, perhaps more pollution for the residents of the Bronx.

    The way that this statement by Dinowitz is worded, it sounds like he thinks cleaner air for Manhattan is a bad thing. (read as: even worse than clean air in Manhattan, more pollution in the Bronx) I’m sure he didn’t intend it that way, but funny nonetheless.

  • Mark

    Glad to hear about the extension of the CP zone to the FDR and West Side Highway. I live next to the Henry Hudson Pkwy uptown — if CP results in less traffic on the highway, I get less pollution and noise.

  • Ed Ravin

    I’m kind of amazed at Dinowitz’s cheerful ignorance of his own previous stands on these issues. But this is consistent with his past statements on the congestion pricing plan – he has always denigrated it, with absolutely no effort at constructive criticism.

    He seems to grab whatever argument is handy, like at the October 11 2007 public forum in Riverdale where he worried out loud that the local Staples shopping center at 234th and Broadway would be overrun with commuter parking. Yet he knows perfectly well that the management of that strip mall has a reputation for towing or booting anyone who parks and steps off the property.

    His Riverdale Press editorial shows that he thinks so little of congestion pricing that he doesn’t even bother to spend any time reasoning out a good argument against it. I feel he is really doing his constitutents (I’m one of them) a great disservice.

  • permitnonsense

    Residential parking permits are not the way to go and should be avoided. By allowing residents easier parking, they will lock in the use of cars for routine commuting, but prevent visitors from using their cars in that area. How do you deal with your parents visiting from the boondocks (for example) if residential parking permits prevent outsiders from parking?What if you need to transport a lot of stuff to your friends house- must you then use a taxi or limo because you can’t park? These are the situations when not using of a car may prove particularly necessary. All city residents should be equals in the parking free for all.

  • Going with Ed Ravin, Dinowitz is just another ignorable figure to bear. It’s annoying to hear how they keep saying the congestion pricing will place a burden on the working and middle-class. I’m middle-class and I don’t think it will be a burden but rather a path to a shakey alternate (the subway). I mean if the working/middle can afford a car, insurance and the gas to go to Manhattan and back, then surely they have the money to take the train or bus. I see it as a relatively small percentage of people in the outer boroughs (talking about the far reaches of Brooklyn and Queens) that are not near the subway, nor even have to commute to Manhattan. The only thing that has to be surefire is to make sure that the congestion funds go directly to mass transit improvements. If and when the congestion plan goes through, there’s gonna be a lot of driver to straphanger conversions and I dont think the subway can handle the influx unless the funds are there for some serious improvement (more trains, BRT). The only way I can see the working class take a hit is the trucks serving businesses. I’m sure they can afford the tax and there has to be some parking regulation changes to accomodate for trucks in order to deter double parking.

  • Larry Littlefield

    (By allowing residents easier parking, they will lock in the use of cars for routine commuting, but prevent visitors from using their cars in that area. How do you deal with your parents visiting from the boondocks (for example) if residential parking permits prevent outsiders from parking?)

    That’s why I prefer a permit applicable to the overnight hours, and that’s why many cities have a permit that works that way.

  • Permits

    Larry – but what about the occasional overnight visitor? There are many neighborhoods that do not have parking alternatives to the street. Those streets will be “owned” by the permit holders?

  • Larry Littlefield

    “Larry – but what about the occasional overnight visitor?”

    Two possibilities — pricier per diem daily permits (I think that’s what they have in Beantown), or allow non-permit parking at smart meters on nearby commercial streets, with a small overnight charge.

  • Permits

    When I visit friends in Somerville or Cambridge, MA, they lend me a permit to park on their block. I don’t know how many permits they get or what they pay for them, but these are neighborhoods with two-family houses with driveways, so we’re talking about a totally different supply-demand ratio. Does anyone know a model for allocating street space in high density neighborhoods?
    One challenge here in NY is getting everyone to recognize that they are part of a HIGH DENSITY city, even if they live in an enclave that is not. One high-rise building on the avenue around the corner adds hundreds of people to a neighborhood of cozy bungalows. Don’t they have as much right to the streets as the bungalow hobbits? I say yes.
    The homeowners are already privileged in their tax rates.

  • Janet

    Because there is ridiculous traffic and no free parking in the Manhattan business district, commuters are already using the outer borough neighborhoods as “park and rides”.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Bronx Traffic Relief Forum Tonight, 7:30pm, Riverdale Temple

|
Bronx Assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz is hosting a forum tonight on Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan. Speaking in favor of congestion pricing will be Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO of the Partnership for New York City. Speaking in opposition to congestion pricing will be Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities […]

Nasty, Personal, Elitist and Not a Bronxite

|
PlaNYC identifies North Riverdale, a neighborhood represented by Bronx Assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz, as one of 22 New York City neighborhoods with a higher than average concentration of Manhattan-bound drivers. (Download the transportation section, page 86) Bronx Assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz wasn’t happy with Streetsblog’s presentation of his Riverdale Press editorial against congestion pricing last […]

“Not Getting Anywhere” at Bronx Pricing Forum

|
And we thought Bloomberg had a tough crowd… Filed by Megan Chuchmach: Parking at the Riverdale Temple in the Bronx was at a premium Thursday night, with cars lining Independence Avenue in front and packing the lot out back. Inside, the owners of those cars, for the most part, raised a stink about Mayor Bloomberg’s […]

Paterson Backs Pricing, Introduces Bill in Albany

|
David Paterson is going to do right by his old State Senate district after all. New York’s new governor settled any doubts about his position on congestion pricing this afternoon, introducing a bill that follows the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. The Daily Politics has the scoop: "Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns […]