Bloomberg Says There’s No Reason Pricing Shouldn’t Pass

Mayor Bloomberg (far, far background) at the Battery Park City Ritz-Carlton this morning

It’s now or never for congestion pricing, the MTA, and maybe even the city itself, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning.

Speaking before a sold-out crowd at the Battery Park City Ritz-Carlton, Bloomberg and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters were the guests of honor at today’s Crain’s New York Business Breakfast Forum, where the mayor painted a bleak picture for a city transit system without congestion revenues and the $354 million in federal funds that hinge on the adoption of a pricing plan by March 31.

“Refusing those funds is basically saying that there will be next to no MTA capital projects in our immediate future,” said Bloomberg. “It’s just the truth of the matter. There is no money short of this.”

Bloomberg said there are “only four significant issues” left to address in the current pricing plan. As to doubts that revenues will be dedicated to transit, the mayor implied there would be no alternative, other than “a steep increase in fares.” The MTA has borrowed all that is “feasible,” he said, noting that even with pricing funds, there is a $9 billion gap in the agency’s capital plan.

Residential parking zones will guard against park-and-ride problems, Bloomberg said. Responding to criticism of a toll credit for New Jersey car commuters, the mayor cited estimates that indicate the new $8 toll is already reducing peak hour traffic. “So, in a very real sense, there’s already a congestion pricing fee for New Jersey drivers,” he said, pointing out that the State of New York receives a 50 percent share of Port Authority tolls.

According to Bloomberg, his administration is working with lawmakers on a possible refund for low-income city commuters “that offsets what they’d pay in congestion pricing fees that are over and above the comparable cost of commuting by subway” — a significant compromise reportedly insisted upon by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. He gave no further details.

Though he said the city needs to “make sure our governor is on board,” Bloomberg bristled at the notion that recent turmoil in Albany could stall the plan, since the makeup of the legislature has not changed. “There’s nothing new here,” he said. “Either you’re going to do it or you’re not.”

Asked if there was any possibility that the plan could be passed now but implemented during better economic times, as has been suggested by Comptroller William Thompson, Secretary Peters responded simply: “No.” For her part, Peters said she is “optimistic” congestion pricing will pass. If not, she said, New Yorkers will have missed out on a “once in a generation” opportunity.

Playing to his business-friendly audience, Bloomberg elicited rueful chuckles when he pointed out that while New York has four earth-boring machines at work on subterranean transportation tunnels, Shanghai has 90.

“Cities that are our competitors in the global economy are making investments that will ensure their future,” he said. “So must we.”

  • Dave

    When did owning a car in the city become a necessity and something that needs subsidy?

    There should be no refund for low-income commuters who drive; it will be messy to implement and opens the door for others who want a reduction…all 142,000 placard-abusers (oops I meant users, didn’t I?)

    Subsidizing rent, phone service, healthcare, and other basic necessities I have no issue with doing in the city. Subsidizing someone’s right to drive is outrageous and should not even be considered.

  • Larry Littlefield

    (There should be no refund for low-income commuters who drive; it will be messy to implement and opens the door for others who want a reduction…all 142,000 placard-abusers (oops I meant users, didn’t I?)

    It all depends on how “low income” is defined. The placard holders are not low income. Low income people cannot afford cars/ insurance/ parking. Unless it is an open avenue for abuse, there would be little use of the provision.

  • Forget about offering to subsidize low-income drivers, we should raise the fees at NYCHA parking lots to market rates. There are thousands of cars owned by some of the lowest income people in New York city. Give them free MetroCards and get them off auto-dependency.

  • Dave

    You would think there would be no low-income drivers in the city but I bet they are out there with no insurance and cars registered in PA or NC.

    I wonder why they even brought this up? It’s as specious as Glick’s comments that poor car-owners don’t have credit cards to pay the CP fee.

    Owning a car in the city needs to be seen as a privilege, not a right. As it is now all citizens pay the costs for individual car-owners.

    Let’s change that and have the car-owning minority pay some of the costs through RPP permits sold for more than $10, by installing East and Harlem River tolls, and by enforcing registration and residency requirements for car-owning residents.

    Sure there will be political kick-back but the mindset needs to evolve into one where owning a car in the city is a privilege to be paid for, not a given right.

  • CQ

    Subject: NYC Council Important Hearing Information

    March 19, 2008
    Thank you for allowing me to keep you updated on the Council’s work on important transportation issues in New York City.

    I thought it might interest you to know that on Monday, March 24, 2008, the Council will conduct an oversight hearing on the New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission’s recently approved congestion pricing proposal. In order to accommodate as many people’s schedules as possible and to allow for the greatest level of community input, the hearing will be split into two sessions. The morning session will begin at 10 a.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall; the evening session will begin at 6 p.m., also in the Council Chambers of City Hall.

    As always, your thoughts and views are very important to us, and anyone who is interested in congestion pricing is strongly encouraged to attend this hearing. Please be sure to check our on-line calendar at prior to that date, as hearings are subject to rescheduling.

    Thank you again for allowing me to share this important news with you.


    Christine C. Quinn

  • Car Free Nation

    If it gets Silver on board, I have no problem with a partial refund for low-income residents. Sure it’s a pain to implement, but $4 will still be an effective deterrent if you’re poor.

    It also sets a precedent, which would allow transit fares to be means tested as well. It’d be a good thing if low-income users of the subway could travel for free or half-price.

  • Dave

    Thanks for the information; I wasn’t aware of the meeting and will try to attend.

    Your support of CP is well-known and appreciated; sounds like an uphill battle. It’s encouraging to see that you read this blog and I hope you will consider some of the many ideas here.

  • Jason A

    If you’re low income and you maintain a car in the city, I can’t help but suspect you’re a in-debt-over-your-head, subprime’d idiot.

    I know it’s a little nasty of me to make light of predatory lending, but seriously, I really want to know who are all these low-income drivers?

    How in the world can any poor or low income New Yorker afford insurance, car payments, gas and maintenance? I can barely make my rent, and I make the (rare) wage which puts me in NY’s (disappearing) middle class. I could never dream of owning a car in the city. To do so, would be an act of extreme financial irresponsibility.

    Silver, Brodsky and friends need to drop the faux populism. This issue is such a stupid red herring.

  • bicyclebelle

    How about instead of giving a refund to low income commuters we have drivers with income over a set amount pay twice as much as the base fee.

    I’m not being completely serious here, but at least this would deter more drivers instead of less, as refunds would, and the base fare could be kept lower so “low income commuters” would still have their advantage.

  • Jason A

    I would like to add that only in bizarro world would so many politicians be telling me that congestion pricing primarily benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.

    This is the only thing serious proposal (that I can think of…) Bloomberg has advanced that stands to help so many lower-income and working class New Yorkers. This is a tremendous social justice issue. That so many Democrats stand in the way of CP speaks volumes about my party’s hollow commitment to “progressive” values.

  • ZO

    Jason, that’s because what they really mean is that congestion pricing comes at the expense of “hard-working, middle-class politicians” who do not travel unless they drive.

  • Damian

    The refund for low-income commuters will not entice significant numbers of them to drive. Most low-income people don’t drive now, so why would they if, as now, there’s no congestion fee for them? Especialy when fuel prices continue to rise and fee-funded transit improvements get implemented.

    This is a shrewd move on Bloomberg’s part, undercutting the specious “congestion pricing hurts the poor” argument, while in reality probably not costing the state much at all or increasing traffic by any appreciable amount.

  • I wonder if they considered pairing pricing with a transportation “prebate”? Send every New Yorker below the poverty line a transportation offset, $4 per workday or $80 monthly, so that low income people who make better transportation decisions (like taking mass transit) aren’t left out. Implied in the proposed “refund” arrangement is that for low income people the cost of an auto trip should be the same as for taking mass transit. Why? The whole point of pricing is to reward individual choices that benefit the public at large. I’m all for helping the poor, but encouraging them to drive with yet another drivers-only subsidy will do more harm than good in the long run.

    On the other hand, pass what you can pass! I do not consider the first line of this story to be an overstatement. Our ability to taper auto congestion will determine if New York becomes a better place to live for people of all income levels, or one whose public spaces fall into seized-up stagnation and decline—also affecting people of all income levels.

  • Ian D

    Currently (3/19, 3:30pm) running on NY1 as the top story is Sec. Peters’ visit to NYC and the CP-topic meeting between Bloomberg and Gov. Paterson.

    At the end of the report they make the quick statement that the deadline for action in order to qualify is actually April 7, not the originally-recognized March 31. Anyone have info on that?

  • Ed

    Two weeks before the vote (or is it now three weeks) suddenly, oh so suddenly, Bloomberg adds this cr*p regarding low income rebates. Last two weeks – placard reduction and local resident permits. Absolutely smacks of desperation and pandering. How long have we been considering this and only now are we addressing issues that have been concerns of those validly opposed to CP for valid reasons, raising valid questions. Bloomberg will do ANYTHING to get this passed to put his stamp on NY. That’s it. It is ridiculous and for anyone on here to say that we should “pass what we can pass” is foolishness at best.

    Weiner addressed concerns about a risk that if money is raised by CP there will be a corresponding decrease in federal funding. I have raised this point prior to reading this. Padavan has raised the issue of no lockbox for the funds (as have others) as well as my raising the issue. There are so many unaddressed major issues in CP that alarms are going off all over the place yet Bloomberg is pulling out all stops to get this passed. That means this will be some watered-down bill that will be drafted with all sorts of grey areas that permit graft and permit everyone to say in the future “Wow, Bloomberg was so great for NY, he got congestion pricing passed!!”

    This is EXACTLY like the stadium that he wanted on the island of Manhattan. Near the time of the vote, he was scrambling to make concessions to get it passed and it was all for his namesake and not for the betterment of the city.

    And don’t even get me started on the inane posts on here regarding the inability of low income drivers to afford cars and insurance. Do you know anyone besides those people in your rarefied circles? Get out of Manhattan or go above the 90’s and meet some people who, lo and behold, are low income yet drive too.

  • Two weeks before the vote (or is it now three weeks) suddenly, oh so suddenly, Bloomberg adds this cr*p regarding low income rebates. Last two weeks – placard reduction and local resident permits. Absolutely smacks of desperation and pandering.

    So, Ed, let me see if I’ve got this straight: If Bloomberg doesn’t respond and adjust to various constituencies’ concerns he’s an out of touch billionaire. If he does respond to those concerns he’s pandering and desperate.

  • Ed

    Obviously you don’t have it straight so let me help you out, Aaron. That’s what I am here for, to help you get it. I didn’t say he was an out of touch billionaire, you did (whether that is true is open to debate).

    He had months to address this issue regarding “low income drivers” but he is trying to tack it on two weeks before the vote to get his plan passed and only to get his plan passed otherwise it would have been addressed before since so many people raised it as an issue. He isn’t looking to help low income drivers – he could have done that months ago. He wants the bill passed for personal reasons – his legacy is resting upon it.

    So yes, it smacks of pandering and desperation so close to the deadline. Especially desperation.

  • Mark

    One person’s “desperation and pandering” is another one’s “urgency and negotiation.” I’d be more concerned if B’berg weren’t doing it.

  • Mark

    Oh, and while we’re at it, Ed, what’s your income level?

  • Ed

    Mark, what do you think my income level is? I bet you’d be surprised. But guess anyway.

  • Ed

    Urgency and negotiation – yeah right, uh huh. If it is such a great plan like most people on here have stated, it shouldn’t need last minute salvos. But it does. Backroom deals and all of that business which means one pol gets what he wants while another pol gets what he wants. This is politics at its worst because they are having you believe that they are promoting a bill in your best interest but they are all making decisions in their own best interests. The pols see how desperate Bloomberg is to get this and they are gonna cash in big time if possible. This is not going to be pretty.

  • Mark

    Ed, you dodged my question about income. That’s a pretty good answer in itself. And predicting that any political process “is not going to be pretty” is shooting fish in a barrel.

    But then, people who want something for nothing — in this case, use of the streets at peak hours for nothing — can be counted on to fight dirty.

  • Ed

    This is my last response on this issue. Your question was inappropriate regarding my income. You don’t know me nor nothing about me. Who do you think you are? I didn’t dodge your question.

    I love it Mark. You raise no points of argument, just my income level that you’ll never know unless you do my taxes. I am well educated and maybe my income level matches that and maybe it doesn’t. I’ll tell you this – I’ve lived in Camden, NJ, South Philadelphia, Elmhurst, NY, the lower east side in the early 90s (pre-gentrification), currently Queens and I’ve seen lots and lots of low income people with cars. I’ve also gone to school with and am friends with lots of high earners. I run the gamut as far as income and education are concerned in my life. Income doesn’t matter to me as a marker like it does to you. Sorry, you can’t categorize me like you want to. I know and understand that makes you uncomfortable and I am sorry for you.

    I’ve made a lot of money and I’ve made minimal money (and not just as a starving college student, at other adult times) and I know that income doesn’t define one. Education, whether via schooling or otherwise, and having one’s own opinions and thoughts are what defines one’s ability to process complex issues.

    A political process that was pretty – how about both houses passing the economic rebates proposed by Bush? That was pretty easy. Do I agree with that? That’s not the point. Don’t make simplistic arguments. Think.

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    And don’t even get me started on the inane posts on here regarding the inability of low income drivers to afford cars and insurance. Do you know anyone besides those people in your rarefied circles? Get out of Manhattan or go above the 90’s and meet some people who, lo and behold, are low income yet drive too.

    Ed, the issue isn’t so much whether there are low-income people who drive (some, but not too many), but whether they drive to Manhattan during business hours.

    I’ve been living in the outer boroughs for ten years, including two in the South Bronx. I’ve met a few car owners who were lower-middle-class, but the vast majority were upper-middle. I have never met anyone who drives in Manhattan below 60th Street on weekdays who could remotely be described as “low-income.”

    You’d think that in over a year, the anti-congestion-pricing people would have produced at least one person who makes less than, say, $50,000 and drives into Manhattan every day. Why haven’t they? Because the lower-income people are all on the train.

    If you’re the same Ed who posted last week, you live in Woodside too, and presumably know tons of these people. I’d be happy to buy a burger at Donovan’s for every person you can produce who makes less than $50K and drives to the proposed pricing zone more than three days a week.

    And please cool it on the insulting rhetoric. It’s not helping your case.

  • Mark

    Ed, if you make enough to own a car, you make enough to rent the street.

  • Hilary

    I would bet that the largest demographic qualifying as low income is the young – students, interns, and those with entry-level jobs. These are EXACTLY the people you do not want to lure into driving! It’s like offering a discount on cigarettes to young people! Driving is a habit.

  • Niccolo Machiavelli

    Time pressure changes things.

  • Ed


    My rhetoric? You say I know “tons” of people? Who wrote that, me or you? You’re guilty of your own accusation. I am not trying to convince anyone on here since most have already made up their minds. I am pointing out the flaws in their positions and that there is more than just getting CP passed that is going on here.

    I am not making an argument on behalf of low income drivers and a daily commute. My point, clearly laid out, is that some low income drivers have cars – that or your South Bronx would be car free, now wouldn’t it? That’s it. I was countering inane posts on here regarding low income drivers not being able to afford cars and insurance.

    And if it is not greatly affecting low income drivers than why is Bloomberg now proposing a rebate? Be careful how you argue this point because this is a classic catch-22.

    Mark, think before you write please. If you pay for the street it is called a turnpike or a toll road. Those do exist. You have an attitude of entitlement oozing through your posts.

    I believe congestion can be relieved in better ways but they are not going to allow Bloomberg to have his legacy and that is why we are not discussing them.

    I find it incredibly suspicious, coincidental, whatever, that two years ago we got all of the funding in place for the second ave subway line. I mean, do you all remember all of the hoopla? Now, CP is up for a vote in conjunction with MTA funding and now we don’t know we are hinging the subway line on the passing of CP? It is pure politics using a so-called green alternative (not the best one, not the least costly and with no added green benefits besides other proposals) to pull the wool over people’s eyes. I see that most here have signed on. Nothing I can do but share on this forum.

  • h-w, m-c politician

    1. I am (loosely) a “hard-working, middle-class politician” and I hardly drive my car anywhere. The snarky generalizations endear y’all to no one.
    2. Until such time that placards are done away with, can those of you who automatically equate having a placard with abuse just stop, already? I have not just one, but two (!!)placards and use them exactly as my employer allows me to use them. I don’t take liberties, therefore I am not a “palcard-abuser.”
    3. While arguing about the ability of low-income people to own cars, let me point out that now that I have gotten (well) past the sunk cost of buying my fossil-fuel-consumption machine, the annual cost of keeping it and driving it some doesn’t really add up to much.
    4. Other than it’s fun, I don’t know why people are arguing with Ed about his accusation of the mayor’s alleged desperation. I seem to recall plenty of posts on this and other blogs about how hizzoner didn’t do enough, early enough (e.g.: lay out exactly what transit improvements would be made with the funds generated). Frankly, I agree with Ed.

  • Hard-working middle-class constitutent

    Hard -working, middle-class politician: Would you share with us just what purposes for which you use your parking privileges? Is it to get to work? From where to where? Thanks.

  • Niccolo Machiavelli

    Ed is right about a few things and wrong about a few things. Yes poor people do have cars, some drive them a long ways to jobs in the suburbs, few drive them to the congestion zone, this is well documented. One of the first things poor people do when they become a little less poor is buy a car. Thats one of the drivers (poor choice of words) of gentrification. As the city deindustrializes (and Bloomberg pushes this) the industrial jobs get pushed further and further out to the periphery. The reverse commute by mass transit is still a bitch to the burbs. So when someone makes a little more scratch they spend it on a car, like a financial hamster wheel.

    Now as to the funding of the 2nd ave subway Ed has a very superficial understanding of how that is being done. Yes the Feds coughed up some promises a couple years ago, and a transportation bond act was passed to borrow the state piece. Still there are checks to be written as construction costs have inflated (Steel, diesel, materials, labor) substantially. And, those bonds have to be paid off. Everyone hated using fare increases to pay these debts so here we are. More money for transit AND less traffic (every day a Jewish holiday). Nothing Ed or any of the oppositionists, whatever class they are in, from or represent, does both other than congestion pricing.

    Politics is a serious business with lots of sex on the side.

  • hard-working, middle-class politician

    Wow, the whole name fits? Anyway, dear constituent, I have placards that enable me to use my personal vehicle, for which I receive no reimbursement, to do my job better. Some times that means saving time between locations during the work day (so you are paying for actual work, and not travel time), some times that means moving something just too big or unwieldy for public transportation. No, it’s not for commutation. I take the subway mostly, the bus occasionally, shoe leather some times. If my building would make it easier to park my bike in a dry, secure place, I’d ride it.

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    Ed, you wrote “crap,” “inane posts” (twice) and “rarified circles.” That’s directly insulting. My comment about you presumably knowing tons of people who drive into Manhattan was snarky, but essentially a restatement of your argument. That’s a long way from gratuitously insulting the people you’re arguing with. If you keep it up, I’m going to ignore your comments.

    I am not making an argument on behalf of low income drivers and a daily commute. My point, clearly laid out, is that some low income drivers have cars – that or your South Bronx would be car free, now wouldn’t it? That’s it. I was countering inane posts on here regarding low income drivers not being able to afford cars and insurance.

    Honestly, I agree with the commenters who think that anyone below the median income in this city can’t afford a car. Just because someone lent them the money to buy it doesn’t make it a smart decision – or one we should be subsidizing. But I ignored the issue in this post – and so should you – because it has nothing to do with congestion pricing.

    And if it is not greatly affecting low income drivers than why is Bloomberg now proposing a rebate? Be careful how you argue this point because this is a classic catch-22.

    Because he’s pandering. Why is this a catch-22?

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    HWMCP, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t, find another shoe.

    Just because you’re a hard-working middle-class politician who takes transit as much as possible and never abuses their placard doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of politicians who drive everywhere and park on sidewalks and in bus stops. More importantly, it doesn’t mean that we don’t have lots of politicians who simply don’t get that the supposed “inequalities” of congestion pricing affect a tiny minority of commuters, while the benefits of congestion pricing would be felt by almost all.

  • Shifter

    Interesting how the pricing debate has come so far and the billions in general tax revenue spent on fixing the East and Harlem Rivers has meant so little. True, the subway goes on the Manhattan and buses on the others, but billions have been spent on these bridges and the expensive smaller bridges and viaducts across the city. Hasn’t meant a thing in the debate over motorist entitlement. Mayor would have been smart early on to document how much the city has spent on the motoring infrastructure compared to the modest amount in gas taxes and other fees it gets back. Those billions would have bought a fair pile of new schools, nicer parks or even tax cuts.

  • Ed

    Angus, it is your choice whether you ignore or don’t ignore my comments. I did not write “crap” I wrote “cr*p”. Those posts that I called inane I still would call inane. But not everyone on here is inane. You don’t seem inane, maybe sensitive, but not inane. As far as rarified goes, that is my interpretation, take it or leave it.

    I see blindness to the realities involved here on the pro-CP side.

    I have a person stating that I have a “superficial” understanding of the funding for the 2nd ave line (a person who’s username shall not be repeated by me due to my own sense of awe at its use). How does he know what I know? Because I used it as an example of the government saying one thing and changing their story down the line when convenient.

    Oh, wait a minute, that’s right, government never, never, never lies to us or manipulates the truth for the benefits of pols who are running it. Noooooooooo. That has never happened in the history of the world. Not once. Maybe that guy with the suspicious user name should read his own book. And Bloomberg is a saint. I’m sorry, I forgot for a moment. He is so green, too but that has nothing to do with the current zeitgeist.

    He was never considering a run for president, right? So while he was saying to us that he was planning to serve out his term he had teams of people in all 50 states (and denied involvement), changed his party affiliation by a specific date so he could be in a primary or on a ballot in a certain state but that wasn’t a lying, egomaniacal guy in office, that was Saint Bloomberg, ready to save us from our ignorant ways and ready to help pave the way for big business to save us from ourselves. I mean, if he is not my friend and a friend of the regular guy on the streets (albeit not one in a car anymore in Manhattan during the hours of 9 -5 Monday thru Friday), who is my friend. The big lug.

    To put any anxieties to rest, rest assured, Bloomberg loves every one of your green asses (mine included) and he includes each and every one of you in his prayers each night as he lay his head down on his 4000 count luxury sheets. Trust him. He really, really cares about you and not his legacy. Its not about his skyscaper with his name on it or his philanthropy or his aborted presidential run. Its all about YOU, you silly new yorker, you.

    Question: was my rhetoric level okay? Just checking.

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    I see blindness to the realities involved here on the pro-CP side.

    You see the same thing that Richard Lipsky and Walter McCaffrey see, because that’s what they want to see. I can only imagine that it’s the same with you.

    I ask you to consider the possibility that we aren’t blind to Bloomberg’s ambition and duplicitousness. That we know that he’s a rich, opportunistic guy with lots of developer friends who on some level wants to be president. That we’re well aware that politicians lie. And we still support congestion pricing. Not because we think that Bloomberg loves us, but because we think it will be good for New York and good for our communities.

    Question: was my rhetoric level okay? Just checking.

    No, actually, you’re being a complete jerk. What on earth do you expect to accomplish by coming on here and insulting everybody? Do you think we’re going to say, “Oh look at that! Ed has shown me the light! I’m going to abandon my inane, silly ways. Oh my god, Bloomberg is an egotistical, ambitious liar! Oh how I’ve been deceived!”?

  • Ed

    I am not insulting everyone, Angus. What, are you all some monolithic group on here? Do you all speak with the same voice, all have the same opinion, all have the same thoughts? No, you don’t. But if you think that you are all on the same side in exactly the same way, read all of the posts on here.

    Because my writing is more colorful than your writing and because I enjoy writing more than you seem to doesn’t make me a jerk. Oh, hey, look at that, Angus just insulted me. But since he is on the righteous side, that’s okay, right? Lipsky, Brodsky, et al. You only name two people but look at the polls and you see skepticism. READ THE REST OF MY POSTS AND YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM FOR REDUCED CONGESTION BUT NOT IN A WAY THAT ISN’T OPTIMAL. I will not settle for a crappy plan that is trendy and being done for a man’s legacy.

    You, Angus, are the only person on here who has insulted me, no one else. Its funny, but you are the one accusing me of being insulted. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

    Have a nice day, one as free of congestion as possible.

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    There’s a big difference between coming into a thread calling people’s comments “inane” and generally being rude to just about everyone, and saying that someone’s “being a jerk.”

    I will not settle for a crappy plan that is trendy and being done for a man’s legacy.

    I will not settle for the crappy status quo that is being kept in place out of fear and entitlement. Nobody in power has seriously proposed an alternative to Bloomberg’s plan that would do anything to reduce the amount of traffic coming down Skillman Avenue. Therefore I am stuck with Bloomberg’s plan.


More Mixed Signals on Pricing’s Chances Under Paterson

  "Today is Monday. There is work to be done." So said David Paterson, who was sworn in as New York’s 55th governor just after 1:00 this afternoon. Two Mondays from now, the City Council and state Legislature will need to have adopted a congestion pricing plan if the city is to receive $354 million […]

From a Sea of Green, Bloomberg Works a Tough Room

Flanked by dozens, if not hundreds, of citizen spectators in bright green "I Breathe and I Vote" t-shirts, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and city staffers this morning made the case for a three-year congestion pricing pilot program to a largely hostile cadre of state Assembly members. Seated alongside ten colleagues in the auditorium of the New […]

Today: Dueling Congestion Pricing Press Events

State Assembly Member Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) is releasing his report on Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal on the steps of City Hall today at 2:00 pm. Billed as "the first thorough, independent, and fair-minded" analysis (Apparently, the Partnership for New York’s two-year study wasn’t thorough and Bruce Schaller’s massive body of research wasn’t independent […]

Congestion Pricing Plan Advancing Rapidly

Sewell Chan at the New York Times’ Empire Zone has more on this morning’s meeting between Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Spitzer and US Dept. of Transportation secretary Mary Peters: Mr. Spitzer said at a news conference this morning, "There will always be some congestion and the good news is there is economic growth and there’s vitality […]

Congestion Panel Meets Amidst Q Poll Parsing

The third meeting of the 17-member Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission will be held at 2:00 this afternoon at the offices of Hughes Hubbard and Reed, 1 Battery Park Plaza (24 State St. @ Pearl St.), 10th Floor, in Manhattan. Today’s event comes on the heels of a new Quinnipiac Poll, released yesterday, that shows support […]