To blame the Mayor here is nothing short of absurd. He may have done an imperfect lobbying job, but he began the conversation with a bold plan.

Furthermore, legislators should be less concerned about the niceties with which they are approached than with the merits of the proposal.

The Assembly failed to put the vital health and quality of life concerns of New Yorkers first. Mayor Bloomberg’s lobbying style is a sorry excuse.

(I wish R. Brodsky were my assemblyperson. He gets results.)

One of those results will be a much bigger fare increase and a decline in neccessary transit repairs. Let’s see if he takes credit.

Just remember, as upset as everyone is about this issue, the CP process was in fact better than virtually anything that the legislature has done. The fact that there was a commission, with real facts collected AND published for all to see, and the CP question considered in relation to the MTA Capital Plan makes it unique. As is the fact that divergent views were actually allowed to be expressed.

The reason the legislature didn’t vote? It only votes a 4 am, and only if the vote is going to be 212 to zero. If people who are upset about this knew about the rest, they’d be…as nuts as I am I guess.

And remember that Brodsky’s main aim is to become speaker after Silver, which is why he led this battle and the one against the fare hike. Won’t happen, but that sure motivates someone.

Was there a need for a vote in the assembly? I think that’s largely besides the point. I don’t think we would have learned much more than we already have.

And, in some ways, a vote might have hurt future prospects (dismal as they are) for congestion pricing, because it would have been such a resounding defeat.

The dismissal of Bloomberg’s role in poorly promoting congestion pricing by many here still confounds me. Whom do we blame for the defeat of Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan (however imperfect it was)? We give credit to the opponents and their clever ad campaign, but we also note that she did a lousy job of putting it together and promoting it. There is some similarity here, no?

If we don’t face up to the lousy job our chief ally did, and analyze what WE could have done differently, we’ll have a tough time winning these kinds of battles.

i completely agree with 12:20.. this site sometimes reminds me of george bush — you’re either with us and our policies or against us — you either understand how enlightened we are or don’t. i agree with pretty much every policy proposal mentioned on this site but find it ridiculous that you keep on attacking liberal manhattan assembly members who supported pricing but didn’t do enough “for the cause.”

Chestnut, “most NYC residents” live in car-free households. The car-free majority is 54 percent of the city’s population according to the 2000 Census.

And your statement that we “did not want CP” is also false. Polls showed that 57 percent of New York City voters supported congestion pricing if the money were used to prevent increases in fares and tolls. And that was exactly how the money would have been used.

Finally, we know exactly who Paul Newell is. The question in my mind is — who are you?

Brad — I understand your frustration, but this is the most controversial vote any elected official could take — the legislative process simply doesn’t work the way you think it should work. I’m not saying it’s fair or right, but it is what it is and you will continue to be frustrated and lose on the politics if you can’t develop a more sophisticated understanding of the political process.

It was not an Assembly driven panel that came up with congestion pricing. They mayor announced 5 days after the commission was created that congestion pricing supporters would dominate commissions membership. He was right. The only “opponents” of pricing who had appointees was the Assembly.. who appointed 3 of 15.

Not only did Bloomberg not do enough PR, he never sought out legislative allies to support his plans. Christine Quinn became his allie in this, but she has basically made a strategic decision to run for mayor as an heir to bloomberg and does whatever he wants her to do. She sees political advantage in her position.

My point is: why do you keep on attacking those who should be your allie instead of engaging them? I think this blog has attacked every manhattan elected official.. many of whom are progressives on this and other livable streets issues. Do you really think this is how you’ll convince them to support your policies?

let’s try again with a winning strategy

While the City Council voted in favor of congestion pricing by a vote of 30 to 20, it is not surprising that the Assembly, which includes many suburban members, could not come up with a majority. Whether a negative vote, registered by member, was important is debatable.

Congestion pricing would have found more favor in the suburbs if there were some real pluses offered to suburban transit riders. The proceeds of congestion pricing were targeted to support Mega Projects, which would take years to complete and, in the case of Westchester commuter rail users, even if completed would have made little significant change in their daily lives. Yet some 40% of revenues would have come from surburban motorists.

The Mayor’s four reps on the MTA Board voted for fare hikes (for city and suburban riders)just before the congestion pricing vote in the legislature. An “all pain and little gain” scenario clearly did not play well in the suburbs.

As a supporter of congestion pricing, I went to the MTA fare hike Board Meeting, standing in line for over an hour with Theodore Kheel, to plead to the Board not raise fares. The two of us were the only supporters of congestion pricing to raise our voices in opposition to the fare hikes at the meeting.

I think it is time to calm down, get over the blame game and devise a winning strategy for transportation reform that includes disincentives for driving to the core, including very substantial levels of cordon pricing, closing key single-occupant arteries to the core like the Central Park loop roadways and converting the entire upper deck of the Queensboro Bridge to bike and pedestrian use, eliminating fares entirely on subways, buses and commuter rail lines and creating a grid of pedestrian streets with surface rail transit, using vision42 as a prototype.

To his credit Assemblymember Gottfried, who publically supports congestion pricing, is one of five elected officials who have signed on to vision42.

George Haikalis
President
Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc.

http://www.irum.org http://www.vision42.org

(No one is going to expend political capital on congestion pricing or anything like it. This was our shot. There isn’t going to be a second chance.)

Perhaps not. But as a result of turning down CP the political capital the state legislature will lose via every transit fare cut, service decrease, and capital project postponed just increased substantially.

People might not support CP if they think there is a cost without a benefit. But once the cost of its absence comes in, they aren’t going to forget who turned down CP and drives and parks for free.

You’ll see lots of state legislators coming out in favor of all kinds of stuff now. Much of it will be phony, but there is a question how long they can get away with it. That’s why they are so keen to blame Bloomberg, or anyone else.

Dick Gottfriend, on the other hand, HELPED us persuade legislative colleagues and was TOTALLY ON BOARD and HELPFUL at every hearing and behind the scenes. He should be THANKED, not idiotically attacked.

Jeffrey, I was not in Albany and did not see or hear any support from Gottfried, only the same line of “we have to do something, but I’ve got so many concerns about this plan,” which did not enable me to differentiate him from the majority of the anti-CP legislators who were too chicken even to come out against the plan.

Is it idiotic to criticize someone for not supporting a plan if his support would have taken an Albany reporter and a Kremlinologist to identify?