Paterson On The Congestion Pricing Failure

Interesting (4.00 / 1)

But Albany failed as well. If this isn't a primary campaign issue with Speaker Silver, I don't what is. People want leadership in these situations and he failed to lead here

I see your point, but here in Queens, people I talk to can't stop expressing what great leadership Silver showed in preventing the plan from coming to a vote (as it is massively unpopular here).

Interesting what one considers leadership, another considers lack of such.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 00:27:05 AM UTC

Very interesting (4.00 / 1)

I see your point, but here in Queens, people I talk to can't stop expressing what great leadership Silver showed in preventing the plan from coming to a vote (as it is massively unpopular here).

This is an excellent point, and probably the best representation of the conflict that will continue to be inevitable as we seek to implement policy to answer the threat of Global Warming.

On the one hand, we have the absolute need for legislation exactly like this congestion pricing plan.  It's a great example of a policy that insists that everybody pay the true cost of driving, a cost which we've been paying only a small percentage of during our century-long love affair with the automobile.

On the other hand, we still have a representative democracy.  Thus, we ourselves are our biggest hurdles to these kinds of initiatives.  To remain in the legislature, the legislator must represent the views of his constituents.  And if the views of the constitutents remain  unchanged, then it will be a hard battle bringing about change in the legislature.

This is why Al Gore had so much trouble getting Global Warming policy passed while he was in government.  Now that he's an elder statesman, his person-to-person method seems to be taking off.  The people have always been one step ahead of the government; but when it comes to global warming solutkinos like congestion prices, there's a good chunk of the people who need to get ahead of themselves and start thinking of the greater good.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 00:42:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not totally sold on (0.00 / 0)

congestion pricing myself, but would have liked to seen the Assembly give it an up or down vote and have every member on record.

I have concerns about the ability of the city's mass transit infrastructure to handle the amount of people it would have to accomadate. I'm sure there's a simple answer or explanation for it, but I haven't heard it yet.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:54:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Massively unpopular? (0.00 / 0)

Define that.

According to a few pieces I've read, two-thirds of New Yorkers support this as long as the money goes towards transit - which it would. The revenues created would go towards the transit system in New York.

Silver didn't show any leadership. He was reluctant in his support for it, but the Assembly Democratic Conference didn't support this. A vast majority of them did not support this. So he showed no leadership at all. In fact, he really didn't have a say. His conference owned him today.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 00:56:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Faith in the MTA (0.00 / 0)

is low around here. People have concerns about the ability of the system to handle more riders and the amount of traffic it would bring to the outer boroughs...Queens in our case.

I don't know one person outside of Manhattan who supports this...also, I know a few in Manhattan who don't.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:56:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the MTA has tons of dedicated revenue streams (0.00 / 0)

and they are a large part of the reason the system has improved so dramatically from its nadir in the 80's

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:12:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, therein lies the debate (0.00 / 0)

It's funny you said that because I've heard people complain the subways and buses have gotten worse and returned to the way they were in the 1980's.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:19:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

it's pretty much consensus that the system is way better than it was then.  At the risk of invading your privacy (don't answer if you don't want to), are you old enough to remember the subways in the 80's?

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes I do (0.00 / 0)

and I don't necessarily believe it's that bad...but plenty think the subways and buses peaked early this decade and have been going downhill since.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:44:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can see that (0.00 / 0)

Bu tI think that's more a legacy of Pataki cutting state support throughout the 90's forcing the MTA to rely on debt, which is now making larger and larger portions of the MTA's budget go to debt service instead of fixing the system.

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:14:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

this brooklynite (0.00 / 0)

supports it and i live in neighborhood, williamsburg, blocks from the williamsburg bridge, sure to be impacted.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:27:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

leadership (4.00 / 1)

is it "leadership" to kill a bill without a vote? it may be massively unpopular in queens, but it is massively popular with the folks who he is supposed to represent.  

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:17:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ironic (4.00 / 1)

This is exactly the situation in which one of those contrived votes-- you know, when they decide in caucus to let a few Dems vote conrary-wise so as not to upset their constituents-- would have benefited Silver.  But, no, no vote at all.

Strange democratic traditions in that Albany place.  High irony, low striaghtforwardness, and enough cynicism to choke a  horse-- or an elephant or a donkey.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:33:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not just what you get, it's how you get it. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:35:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Silver failed to lead? (4.00 / 4)

If you listen to his cheerleaders, he's not supposed to lead - he's supposed to represent the will of his conference, which of course he does perfectly.

In this case, the will of his conference seems to have been to hide from the bright lights of a public vote, and he led them right into the comfortable darkness.

Bah.

And what's with the Senate Dem minority hiding in their conference too, to block a congestion pricing vote?  Come on out and vote, like, you know, legislators.  All of you.  All the time.

I look forward to someday actually getting to support my fellow Democrats who happen to be legislators instead of wincing at their dreadful performance.  Today's not the best day for that, apparently.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:05:16 AM UTC

It's pretty funny how those losers (4.00 / 1)

basically hate on every Democrat except for Shelly.  It's also funny how they like to out blogger's identities, and also not allow comments on their "blog."  

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:28:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Haha! (4.00 / 1)

Oh noeses, junior Assembly staff has access to a computer and can do teh bloggingz!

Snort. Like everybody can't see after three seconds worth of reading that this is astroturf, some staff hack trying to put Shelly's mind at ease that not all blogs hate him.

Oh, and "democracy 2.0 for new york". How edgy and tuned in and stuff. But kitty disapproves.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:12:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regardless of your support.... (4.00 / 1)

or lack thereof of the congestion pricing bill, it is an example of Albany's corruption that this bill didn't even get brought to a vote.  Secret meetings, secret votes, proclamations by Silver - it's all dysfunctional business as usual in Albany.  At least Silver is finally facing some opposition with Luke Henry (and with Newell, but Luke is the candidate who can actually win).

---

by: kate_nyc @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:28:39 AM UTC

i like both challengers (0.00 / 0)

but i'm very curious to hear your rationale for luke. please explain.  

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:40:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Luke has the voter appeal (0.00 / 0)

I have nothing against Paul, but Luke's campaign is broader.  He is not interested only in unseating Silver and reforming Albany; his campaign is based on a platform of solving the problems of the people in his district.  His website has a pretty detailed overview of his positions and he has invested time into understanding the issues - I think that will resonate with the voters.  I also think that he has the drive to win - he is everywhere in the district, seemingly at once, talking to voters.  It's going to take a lot of hard work to unseat Silver, and Luke appears to be to be in it for the long haul.  He clearly would not be content with his campaign merely inspiring Silver to be more responsive to his constituents.

---

by: kate_nyc @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 15:50:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Luke and Paul... (4.00 / 2)

I would kindly make this recommendation to my friends in NYC who are debating about the challengers to Shelly: Don't try to one-up each other.

If we get into this debate about whether or not Luke is better or Paul is better, aren't we avoiding the true target (Silver)?

I like both. Paul and Luke both bring a lot to the table. But we get into this debate about which of those two are better, we would be avoiding the real issue.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 16:09:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that's a valid point (4.00 / 1)

I agree, Robert - we shouldn't make this about Paul vs. Luke.  I was just answering the question, not trying to go down that path.  Which of the two is ultimately in the best place to unseat Silver will likely work itself out in time.  I  happen to think that is Luke, but I don't think it's something that anyone needs to spend time debating.

---

by: kate_nyc @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 16:19:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I speak from experience... (4.00 / 1)

With our congressional race up here. I have my criticisms of other candidates for good reason. But criticisms are different than smears. People are smearing Jon Powers because he's "not one of them." Meaning, he's not with the establishment.

This is the same trait Luke and Paul both have. They aren't the establishment candidate. They will no doubt get heat for being the anti-establishment candidate(s), so be prepared. But like our presidential race, we can't be in the business of attacking other Democrats and questioning how progressive they are and so on. We eventually need to work together. Unfortunately, our party hasn't been showing that a lot lately.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:52:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just briefly (4.00 / 1)

and generally, I'd like to advise everyone involved that there will be immediate and massive blowback if Luke goes negative on Paul. I really like Luke, even if I have some doubts, perhaps due to lack of paying attention, about his campaign. But I have zero patience for this kind of stuff.

Please don't do this again. Thank you.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:29:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The leadership issue. (0.00 / 0)

It was not leadership that killed the bill today.  The conference was massively against it and even those that were for it wanted changes.  Shelly gets hit when he forces votes on the conference and apparently takes hits when he bends to the majority of his members as well.  The fact that he'll take the hit in the press and his own district without complaint is exactly why he is the speaker.

This was, again, a failure of Bloomberg's legislative strategy.  

---

by: fukushimajin @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:50:32 AM UTC

I see you're "someone who served in the Assembly" (0.00 / 0)

from this previous comment:

http://www.thealbanyproject.co...

So why exactly should the conference be allowed to vote in private and have Shelly announce that it's dead, instead of actually coming out into the light and having members identify their position?

Is there anything at all in this system that makes sense for the voters of the State of New York?

(I don't believe this is Shelly taking a hit for the sake of his conference, either, but that's hard to prove since none of the conversation is public.)

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Voting in Conference (0.00 / 0)

I agree that votes should be taken on the floor.  That said,  the result would have been no different and would have delayed the budget by another week.  My problem with some of the logic I hear is that the only way Shelly could have done the right thing here is to have forced the conference to agree to the Congestion Pricing plan because, in the opinion of some, it was the right thing to do.  It was never going to pass the assembly from day one based on the opinions of the legislators (almost all legislators have made their positions abundantly clear to their constituents already) -- it would never have passed the City Council without Bloomberg and Quinn dropping money and endorsements on everyone like it was Christmas.  My other issue is all these liberals who can't wait to be rid of Joe Bruno, but are willing to accept his support, completely uncritically and without the slightest reservation on this issue.  In my view the Republicans are for it because it generates a lot of cash from NYC residents which they can then deduct from the State's contribution from the MTA budget and use upstate.  When have the Senate republicans done anything in the interest of NYC without being forced?  

Like the Jets stadium and the Olympics this is Bloomberg's failure to understand a legislature that doesn't run exclusively on manna dropped from City Hall.  Its a shame, because he could have built a legacy and even gotten this done.  

---

by: fukushimajin @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 18:35:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

pain of irony (0.00 / 0)

My problem with some of the logic I hear is that the only way Shelly could have done the right thing here is to have forced the conference to agree to the Congestion Pricing plan because, in the opinion of some, it was the right thing to do....

My other issue is all these liberals who can't wait to be rid of Joe Bruno, but are willing to accept his support, completely uncritically and without the slightest reservation on this issue.

I'm glad you think it should have been a vote on the floor, but I also think you've captured the twisted irony that makes this story feel especially awful.

Congestion pricing is, basically, an approach that liberals (or progressives if you prefer) tend to support.  The model is "Red Ken's" work in London, the general hostility to automobiles is typical of proposals from the left side of the political spectrum, and conservatives can always complain about new taxation.  And heck, free money (sort of) from the federal government.

So where does it wind up?  With the supposedly progressive Assembly (and Senate) Democrats deciding to can the idea without bothering with a vote, and Republicans in both houses more or less supportive.

If I hadn't known better I'd have thought Brodsky's proposal came from a Long Island Republican State Senator, not a Democratic Assemblyman.

I don't think it's just Bloomberg, though the pissing match between him and Silver doesn't help.  I look forward to having both of them gone - but don't expect a Democratic Mayor and a Democratic Assembly and Senate to function much better unless the underlying rules of the game change.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 19:45:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Twisted Irony says it exactly (0.00 / 0)

This program includes too regressive a tax to clear my liberal threshold.  Any fee paid by a NYC resident driving in Manhattan should be equaled or exceeded by fees paid by non-city residents.  In the proposed plan it cost a NJ driver (who often have excellent, cheap public transport options) $1 to enter a lifer from Sunset Park (with lousy public transport) who pays city income tax would pay $8.  Not fair on its face.

Also, Red Ken would not have put the plan in place unless the improved public transportation were already in place -- not the case in NYC. And I hate the idea of relying on the MTA to keep their promises down the road.  No way.

I agree that the other proposals offered were weak.  I personally think that the answer is clamping down on and surcharging parking.  

---

by: fukushimajin @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 22:10:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A parking surcharge (0.00 / 0)

certainly has the benefit of simplicity.  I'm not sure, overall, though, that it's any less regressive than the congestion pricing proposal.  The lifer from Sunset Park probably doesn't want to just drive around lower Manhattan - he likely wants to stop someplace.

The other reason the regressiveness doesn't bother me too much is that this is a tax intended to change behavior, to drive people to use other options. It'll be less effective on the wealthy - these things always are - but increasing use of public transit makes it healthier, and potentially more attractive to all New Yorkers.

Do the public transit options need to exist?  Of course they do.  But public transit perpetually faces a chicken and egg problem.  It doesn't make sense to run public transit through places where people feel dependent on the automobile and have them - even if that automobile dependence was created by decades of bad planning before.

Red Ken did have the benefit of better transit to start with - unfortunately it is harder on this side of the Atlantic generally.

If you build the public transit lines before taking major steps to build demand, you get criticism for running empty buses or subways at a loss.  If you build the public transit after, you get accused of creating a regressive tax to build demand.

I'd say that overall that that is the problem congestion pricing was attempting to overcome.  The painful irony is that supposed liberals, some with theoretically deep commitments to public transit, were the ones who torpedoed this.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 00:57:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Parking surcharge (0.00 / 0)

See this is the problem -- in Liberalism it's fine to change public behavior, its just not OK to make money the only discriminating factor.  I want the guy who travels 50+ miles a day every day from Connecticut to Manhattan to pay more and be encouraged to use the excellent and comfortable public transportation he has access to.  A parking surcharge allows the NYC guy who comes in occasionally to shop to dodge the higher parking cost by staying a shorter time -- or if he's just coming in to pick up his mom he needs to pay nothing.  There would also need to be neighborhood parking permits issued to Manhattan residents to eliminate free parking in Manhattan for commuters.

The system proposed punishes city residents who drive and seems to benefit the higher income people who take taxis and black-cars all the time and long-distance commuters who contribute the most to greenhouse emissions.

It is a 100% cop-out to say that we simply can't do public transportation improvements before installing congestion pricing in America.  Reinstating the commuter tax or the millionaire tax all seem like a good place to start.

---

by: fukushimajin @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 13:22:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

discriminating factors (0.00 / 0)

"in Liberalism it's fine to change public behavior, its just not OK to make money the only discriminating factor."

Interesting.  So liberals never supported cigarette and liquor taxes?

Your parking proposals are sane, so long as the guy driving in from Sunset Park doesn't want to stay in Manhattan as long as the rich guy from Connecticut. I'm not sure I'm convinced that people living below 60th Street are particularly smart to have cars and keep them in the city, but I suspect there are enough cases where that's necessary that addressing that makes sense.

I have to confess that I don't see any benefit to "higher income people", especially the long-distance commuters whose wallets Brodsky was plainly trying to protect.

It's a complicated issue and there's lot of room for disagreement, but I can't say any of this sounds like a genuine improvement over what was improved.  At this point, we're left just praying to the MTA while as many CT SUVs as feel like it drive through Manhattan.

No worse than before, but no better.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 18:23:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

European tourists and business travelers (0.00 / 0)

In my opinion, the improvements in transportation need to be organized in a regional approach, with funding brought together from federal as well as state and local sources.  Those are good suggested state funding sources.

Under a Democratic administration on the federal level, we may have other options for funding the more regional aspects of the plan.  Also, we may see some change in how homeland security funds are allocated, with some new emphasis on those areas most likely to be targeted and/or at risk of natural disaster.  An evacuation plan for NYC residents who do not have cars would be a very timely thing, given our experience with Katrina, and might well involve building train lines like the Rx loop.

As far as how to change behavior, I think that the example of the rest of the world is our strongest asset... especially since the fall in the dollar has filled NYC with international tourists.  They can show us how one rides a train.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 13:44:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Learn from Europe! (0.00 / 0)

Now there's an idea that the various cranky people on this subject will all likely peg as elitist and un-American.

(Though yes, I'm certainly learning from my German wife.)

Seriously, though, appealing to people's better nature on these issues doesn't work that well - even in Ithaca.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 18:26:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

tactics and progress on process (0.00 / 0)

Bloomberg should have prepared a legislative strategy to work in the existing environment, with the dysfunctional legislative rules under which we currently operate our government.  We can all, like the Governor, feel sad that our NYS governance processes are so often unable to produce effective results, even disappointed that reform progress has been so slow.  But, when you want a bill passed by a deadline, you have to work with what you've got.  Bloomberg didn't, and we have all lost because a compromise was not reached.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 13:49:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bloomberg proposed this back in April 2007 (0.00 / 0)

and the Assembly's been the consistent stumbling block.  They're the ones who pushed it to the deadline, and I'm not sure why progressives are supposed to be happy that Democrats in the Assembly (and apparently the Senate) shot this down.

What should Bloomberg have done?  Handed Shelly a $500,000 check like he did the Senate Republicans?

Maybe that at least would have put the vote in the light of day, instead of buried in top secret-eyes only-conference.

It might be a more interesting world if NYC actually controlled the bridges and tunnels that lead into it, instead of praying for the state and the authorities' cooperation.  

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 13:57:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bloomberg proposed this back in April 2007 (0.00 / 0)

and the Assembly's been the consistent stumbling block.  They're the ones who pushed it to the deadline, and I'm not sure why progressives are supposed to be happy that Democrats in the Assembly (and apparently the Senate) shot this down.

What should Bloomberg have done?  Handed Shelly a $500,000 check like he did the Senate Republicans?

Maybe that at least would have put the vote in the light of day, instead of buried in top secret-eyes only-conference.

It might be a more interesting world if NYC actually controlled the bridges and tunnels that lead into it, instead of praying for the state and the authorities' cooperation.  

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 13:57:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure how that got double-posted.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 13:58:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Process and product need separate consideration (0.00 / 0)

That is the exasperated thinking, in dealing with broken processes, that leads to poor proposed solutions (like, what if there were no mechanisms for NYC to have to work cooperatively with its region?).

No, regional planning is not a mistake.  The mistakes are in the processes at the Authority and State level.  And, no, Bloomberg should not have handed a half-million-dollar check to Shelly, he should have refrained from handing one to Bruno.  The current situation requires equal treatment and willingness to accomodate in coming to compromise. NYC mayors have known that in the past.

That said, a good deal of disappointment could also be attributed to the consistent, flexible leadership that Spitzer failed to provide.

We should not be "happy" about either the product or the process here.  But, we should also resist the tendency to heap all the blame on Silver-- making him "take the hit" is actually a part of the dysfunctional process. We can stop doing our part in that dysfunctional old drama.  

---

by: robinia @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 14:35:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

making Shelly "take the hit" (0.00 / 0)

is a step toward finally breaking the deadlock we pretend is a process.  Hopefully the voters in his actual district will remember this next time they vote

We should also remind our gutless Assembly (and Senate) Democrats that they shouldn't be hiding behind their leadership, sure.  And I mean that bluntly - they shouldn't ever be voting on major issues only in conference.  It's a blight, a breakdown in political process which exists basically because of their lack of courage.

(And at least my own Assembly member acknowledged that she opposed it, though the quote doesn't really suggest that she has a reason.  That could just be bad reporting, of course.)

As for the specifics of the proposal I have to say that this one is hard for me to read - as a former Manhattan resident - as anything other than car-addicted suburbanites complaining about having to bear the cost of their driving to a place where driving is simply a bad idea.

I don't like Bloomberg, but I find it pretty hard to hold him at fault for this one.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 14:51:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I forgot the comedic part (0.00 / 0)

Which was Brodsky's proposal:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes....

Yeesh.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 15:16:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]