Traffic Pricing Is Evolving. Can Its Opponents?

“The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones,” wrote John Maynard Keynes in his ground-breaking 1935 treatise, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.”

Richard Brodsky. Photo: ##http://www.flickr.com/photos/nysdems/4808401485/sizes/m/in/photostream/##Assembly Democrats/Flickr##

Keynes was bemoaning budget-balancing nostrums that deepened the Great Depression. But the famed economist’s lament applies equally to Richard Brodsky’s exhumation last week of his outdated criticisms of congestion pricing.

Brodsky is the former state legislator who almost single-handedly derailed Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal in 2007-08. He retired in 2010 after nearly three decades representing parts of Westchester County in the State Assembly and carving out a reputation as Albany’s most ardent — and acerbic — champion of progressive economic and environmental policies. Indeed, it was by attacking from the left, as the upholder of egalitarian ideals, that Brodsky outflanked the “billionaire mayor” and defeated his pricing plan.

In truth, though, Brodsky’s objections were overblown, and traffic pricing has evolved considerably since 2008, even as the city and region’s need for transit funding has grown dire. But you’d never know that from the shopworn rhetoric Brodsky tossed out last week against Gridlock Sam Schwartz’s traffic plan, in an article in the New York Observer:

You can call a banana “broccoli,” but it’s still a banana. They are looking for answers in the wrong places, still pursuing tolls. Equitable? That’s not equitable.

That’s the short version. Brodsky detailed his “issues” with congestion pricing in the January 2008 minority report of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission (PDF, p. 8):

Four particular facets of the pricing scheme exacerbate the regressivity and unfairness of the Commission’s proposal. First, it is a flat fee paid by all regardless of income. Second, those who pay tolls on other facilities are exempted from the fee, intensifying the unfairness because those in NJ, CT, Westchester and LI tend to be wealthier than those in the outer boroughs who must pay the new fee. Third, there are clear wealth distinctions between the outer boroughs and Manhattan [which] increases the regressivity of the scheme. Fourth, the largest single group of contributors to congestion, taxi users, whose average income is higher than the average driver, is largely exempt from the fee.

Of Brodsky’s four issues from 2008, three do not apply to Schwartz’s 2012 plan.

  • Under the Schwartz Plan, medallion taxi users will face a 50-cent increase in the drop charge, a 20 percent rise in the mileage charge, and a 30 percent rise in the wait-time charge. The average yellow cab ride will cost $1.50-$2.00 more, raising substantial additional revenue, improving traffic flow, and ensuring Manhattanites contribute their fair share.
  • Manhattan residents, who comprise 12 percent of the population of the 12-county MTA region, will pay nearly 24 percent of the net costs of Schwartz’s tolls and fees, well ahead of Queens (19 percent) and Brooklyn (16 percent), thus reversing the pro-Manhattan bias of the original pricing plan (Brodsky’s third objection). This comes via four distinct features of Schwartz’s plan: deep discounts on MTA bridge tolls; dollar bus fares in districts beyond the reach of subways; repealing the partial sales tax exemption for Manhattan monthly garage parkers; and the surcharge on yellow cab fares. And most of the borough’s toll “incidence” will fall on the better-off precincts south of 86th Street rather than on Harlem or Washington Heights.
  • The Schwartz Plan rests on toll equalization, not exemptions: every car trip into the Manhattan Central Business District will be charged the same, regardless of origin. Goodbye to Brodsky’s second objection.

Brodsky’s first concern — that the congestion charge doesn’t vary with driver income — does apply to Schwartz’s plan. It also applies to tolls on every MTA and Port Authority crossing, to subway and bus fares, and, in fact, to Yankees tickets, iTunes downloads, gasoline, and the proverbial quart of milk. What distinguishes congestion charging is that its proceeds will go to safeguard and modernize the city’s transportation infrastructure, especially the trains and buses that New York’s 99 percent use far more heavily than the highways and bridges to the CBD. In short, the subtext of Brodsky’s first and strongest objection, that congestion pricing is an assault on the non-rich and powerless by the rich and powerful, doesn’t apply to any pricing plan.

With its substance neutered, Brodsky’s opposition to congestion pricing collapses to a philosophical point he voiced shortly after leaving the legislature, in a private communication I cannot cite but will quote: “It is a pricing mechanism that allocates access to public places on an ability to pay.” Close, but not quite: the public places being tolled aren’t destinations like the Theatre District or Wall Street; they are means to reach those places — roads and bridges to which access has been rationed for generations, based on an ability to suffer gridlock as well as the resources to own and keep a car — and to which there are, for most trips, viable transit alternatives. And with new revenue, the MTA can and must fill the transit gaps that remain for a small portion of outer borough residents.

Keynes died in 1946, the same year Brodsky was born, and a few years before Columbia University economics professor and future Nobel laureate William Vickrey began developing the intellectual and analytical bases of congestion pricing. Like Brodsky, Vickrey was a man of the Left, a Keynesian who believed strongly in deficit spending to fight unemployment.

Vickrey, an inveterate innovator, had little trouble heeding Keynes’ dictum to escape from old ideas. If Brodsky can channel his inner Keynes and free himself of his outmoded antipathies, the path to fixing traffic and financing transit in NYC could get a little smoother.

  • JK

    Nice piece Charlie. Shoddy work there Mr. Brodsky. Let’s also not forget that bus and subway riders are already paying to cross these free East and Harlem River Bridges. How is it fair that pedestrians and cyclists are banned from vast, expensive, swaths of transportation infrastructure that they pay for with their income and sales taxes —- when’s the last time somebody biked to work on the LIE, BQE or Grand Central?

  • Brodsky District Guy

    Brodsky’s context was representing a district of liberals that is heavily car-dependent.  It is very hilly, and spread out.  Even getting to MetroNorth commuter rail is difficult without a car, and parking at these stations is limited and relatively costly.  Transit, in the form of bus service, is infrequent with spans that don’t go too far beyond rush hours; bus stops are often isolated and unsheltered.  

    Fortunately, for the reasons often discussed here at Streetsblog, people are realizing that we need better transit.  Many town boards in Brodsky’s district voted for Transit on the TZ Bridge resolutions.  Older residents of the district are confronting a phase of their lives where they can no longer drive.  Younger residents want to stop driving so much.  And people are starting to “see” all the residents who cannot afford a car.

    The already built-out towns are clogged with cars, especially at rush hour and on weekends.  Sidewalks are sporadic or non-existent, placing pedestrians and bicyclists on narrow roadbeds with high-speed cars.  Places with good bicycle infrastructure, like the South County Trailway, are virtually unreachable except by car in towns like Ardsley and Irvington.  So the teens of these communities can’t get there unless their parents drive them.

    Hopefully, the Schwartz Plan will garner the support of the legislators in Brodsky’s former district, Tom Abinanti and Andrea Stewart-Cousins.  If they do support it, they will need a lot of help from political donors in the city to withstand the backlash.

  • Aidry

    Starting off by quoting John Maynard Keynes and calling his work “groundbreaking” probably wasn’t the best lead in to this article. His ideas weren’t new, or groundbreaking at the time, and despite repeated attempts have never quite worked as intended if at all.

  • Larry Littlefield

    I don’t know what happened to my comment, but I have a hard time taking concern about “a pricing mechanism that allocates access to public places on an ability to pay” from a Westchester rep.  Westchester parks not only charge for access, but also exclude non-residents.  Compare that with Central Park.

    People from Westchester don’t want people from NYC in their communities.  People from NYC welcome people from Westchester.  The motor vehicles, not so much.

  • Alex Matthiessen

    Another excellent piece by Mr. Komanoff. Particularly important is his illustration of why a congestion pricing plan is not as regressive as detractors would like to believe it is — and certainly no more than a thousand other charges NYers are faced with everyday. And most important, major new investments in our regional road and transit system would benefit the vast majority of New York area residents — rich and poor alike.

  • Clarence Eckerson

    I almost busted a gut laughing out loud about the Yankees tickets and iTunes downloads. A very smart article.

  • Upstate politicians like Brodsky have built their political careers out of scapegoating NYC as parasitic boogieman, and yet, they still retain the right to say what we can, and can not do, in our city.  

    There’s your injustice Mr. Brodsky.  

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Brodsky Presents Dems With a Choice: God’s Love or Al D’Amato

|
Richard Brodsky is using this letter to rally opposition to congestion pricing. To get a sense of the issues that congestion pricing advocates will have to address in the State Assembly, download this letter that Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky circulated to his fellow Democrats yesterday. In it, Brodsky repeats the debunked claim that congestion pricing […]

Dollars for Democracy on Brian Lehrer Today

|
Today at 11:20am Brian Lehrer digs deeper into the story, published first here on Streetsblog, that congestion pricing opponent Richard Brodsky received more contributions from parking industry interests than any other New York State Assembly Member. You can tune in online. From the WNYC web site: What’s the connection between campaign contributions and policy making? […]

“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 […]

Three Questions for Richard Brodsky

|
We called Assemblyman Richard Brodsky yesterday to get his comments on the demise of congestion pricing. While he wouldn’t talk to us on the phone, he fielded a few questions over e-mail.  Streetsblog: With congestion pricing off the table and the deadline to receive $354M in federal support about to pass, will other traffic mitigation […]

Election Night Open Thread: Rivera KOs Espada

|
The early returns are in, and Pedro Espada is going to have to make up some ground to retain his seat in the State Senate. Other incumbents don’t seem to be in as much jeopardy. Update: It’s official. Espada has conceded the race to challenger Gustavo Rivera. It also looks like congestion pricing antagonist and […]

It’s the Bus Riders, Stupid.

|
Is Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, a regressive tax, unfair to New York City’s poor and working class? That’s what Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky and quite a few of the other critics claim. Before last week’s public hearing before the state legislature Brodsky cited a study commissioned by City Hall showing the mayor’s plan […]