AD-64: "Doctors for Congestion Pricing" Launch Anti-Shelly Blog

Arguing this is easy (4.00 / 1)

First of all, even Mayor Bloomberg claimed often that the reduction in auto traffic wouldn't be significant.  The claim, therefore, that the congestion pricing plan "would have saved the lives of countless asthmatic children" does hold water.

Second, the claim that it would raise huge funds for mass transit doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  In London, which was held up as the model of success, funding for mass transit fell far behind projections, even though the price paid by drivers was raised quickly (and is being raised yet -- a lot -- again).  One of the major problems is that the cost of administering this program is a lot higher than its backers would have us believe.  (BTW -- even the most optimistic projections never came close to claiming that this plan would raise anywhere near $900M/yr., so the claim that "it would have saved the New York City subway system" is pure garbage.)

The reason congestion pricing didn't pass is that it's a bad plan.  It's a great idea, but a bad plan.  This plan won't reduce traffic by any significant amount, and it won't raise the funds we need.  It will, however, cost a lot of middle-class workers and small, independent contractors a lot of money.

Is congestion pricing, or at least some other plan to reduce the number of cars clogging the roads in and around New York City, dead?  I certainly hope not.

As for that "Doctors for..." blog -- it's anonymous, and therefore stands a good chance of being phony.  Certainly the language is demagoguery at best, and not particuarly good demagoguery at that.  Whoever is putting it up is a coward.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 18:15:13 PM UTC

When the port authority raised tolls on the hudson river tunnels (0.00 / 0)

traffic fell by 2-3%- I think it's pretty clear the congestion charge would have reduced traffic in the pricing zone.  

As for the money, while $500 million wouldn;t have solved all the MTA's problems, it certainly would have helped a lot.  

---

by: Roatti @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 18:52:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Phony numbers don't work (0.00 / 0)

$500 million is $100 million more than Mayor Bloomberg was projecting.  The real number, based on the difference between projections and reality in London, (and the difference between optimistic projections from supporters and reality in almost every project known to mankind) is almost certain to be far less than the mayor's projections.

The other problem with the plan is that the Hudson River crossings won't cost anyone anything -- they'll already have paid their tolls, so they won't be charged any more.  People going both ways through the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel would similarly pay their full amount in the toll, so they won't pay a dime to the congestion pricing plan.

In both cases, there will not only be no diminution of traffic, but since the non-toll bridges over the East River will no longer be quite as attractive, the toll crossings (B'klyn-Battery and Midtown tunnels) will get more crowded.

Traffic reduction from this congestion pricing plan would be insignificant at best.  Meanwhile, administrative costs would certainly eat up far more money than projected (they always do).

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 20:18:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Asthma rats are atrocious in the 64th AD (0.00 / 0)

Any alleviation is needed and this is a long term battle.  To deny congestion pricing as a first step in the right direction is disingenuous at best.  Outer boro residents need to take greater advantage of our public transport-  the imposition of tolls would create greater stimulus int he outer boros for support of public transport as well.  

-Evan Hutchison
Campaign Manager - Newell for Assembly
evan@newellnyc.org  

---

by: noob @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 20:12:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong again (4.00 / 1)

First, I should point out that both Paul Newell and Luke Henry have supported the congestion pricing plan, so I'm disagreeing with both of them.  Now...

It's easy for Manhattanites to lecture the "Outer boro residents" from their exalted perch.  Come live out here for a while and then talk to us.  Mass transit to, from, and around much of the outer boroughs is sadly lacking.  I'm lucky; I happen to live in an area where mass transit is available -- and yet, even for my situation, trying to get into Manhattan during either the morning or evening rush hours is a lesson in frustration.

Let's talk about the commuter tax.  If we restarted it, we could raise over $400 million/yr., without the onerous administrative costs.  Let's talk about raising the tolls on bridges and tunnels leading into NYC from outside NYC.  Again, that could raise tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars with no additional administrative costs.

Let's talk about restoring federal government funding to expand commuter rail lines.  The east side access project is behind schedule and over budget, due to government cutbacks as much as anything else (except for soaring construction costs due to poor mayoral city planning).  The third LIRR rail line is desperately needed.

Adding a commuter rail hub in Long Island City would be fairly easy.  Creating new Central Business Districts in LIC, Jamaica, central Brooklyn and the Bronx would not only lower traffic into Manhattan, but also create tremendous numbers of new jobs.

There are many alternatives to the congestion pricing plan that offer more revenue, fewer costs, more permanent jobs, and a better standard of living for New York City.  Let's stop pretending that a few Manhattanites know what's best for the whole city.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 20:30:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so fast Roatti and Evan (4.00 / 1)

Fist off, the constant harping on TAP that the Assembly is bad and so is Shelly Silver is repulsive.  They are the most progressive bunch there is within the State's borders and I'm happy they're there.

Secondly, I agree with Dan, an anonymous blog is phony.

When it comes to pollution Bill Clinton said it best when he finally weighed in on congestion pricing in June 2007.
He found the fee to be regressive for lower-income working people especially when 80% of the pollution problem in the city is from buildings. We just recently stopped using coal to heat schools in New York, doesn't that tell you something?

Once again, over the top Evan. Just run a normal campaign why don't you. No one is going to believe the big bad Shelly Silver is killing their neighbors. Take your new blog down.

---

by: TruBlu @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 20:39:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All those working class folk (0.00 / 0)

who pay $30 a day to park in mahnattan.

That's a specious argument, and you know it.  

---

by: Roatti @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 21:41:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's specious (0.00 / 1)

to say he's killing people. I put it in the same category as that fake photo you made of him with his hand on a gun. It's over the top. You eventually cropped it but you still thought it, made it, posted it and delighted in it until someone said something.

---

by: TruBlu @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Casino Royale was the point (0.00 / 0)

Not originally cropping the gun may have been an oversight, but don't you dare assign false motives to me.  

---

by: Roatti @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 22:04:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talking to you is like talking to a brick (0.00 / 0)

Cars create particulate pollution.

Particulate pollution causes asthma.

Asthma kills people.

Furthermore, I think it's high time you come clean with your connection to Shelly and any conflicts of interest you have.

---

by: Roatti @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 22:53:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have no connection to Sheldon Silver (0.00 / 0)

In fact, I'm backing one of his opponents.  So when I say that your defense of a claim that Sheldon Silver is, essentially, killing people, merely because he opposes a rotten congestion pricing plan, is disgusting -- it's because your defense of that claim is disgusting.

You should be ashamed of yourself.  So should the coward who styles him/herself as "Doctors for congestion pricing" and hides behind that phony nickname to make ad hominem attacks instead of coming clean.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Umm, Dan (0.00 / 0)

That comment wasnt in reply to your comment- it was directed at Trublu

---

by: Roatti @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 14:55:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't have the luxury (0.00 / 0)

of a boss who would take kindly to my blogging or my political bent. If you do Roatti then you are very lucky. We don't see eye to eye on things and I have enjoyed our exchanges and have even learned a thing or two about how honestly different people see things. But you assert as though I have committed a web crime or something. I have never doctored a photo, called for googlebombing or even know how to do it, and I have no bog of my own anonymous or not. I simply write here from time to time on my own time and challenge people's assertions when I think differently and try not to insult. I am a New Yorker with an opinion. So are you and I have no idea nor do I care who you might be, where you work or what you do, I still value your opinion just the same. That said, you are one of the owners of this blog I think and if you prefer I give my name, address, and place of work in order to write here then I would simply choose to comply with the website's wishes by leaving this website never to write my opinion again.  

---

by: TruBlu @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:49:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

It's just that I've never met a progressive blogger who actually likes Shelly, and especially one who has disdain for the Senate Dems and Paterson- your unique opinions just raise some eyebrows.  But I will take you at your word.

As for the photo, there's nothign wrong with doctoring a photo when it is clear that it is doctored and everybody knows it's not actually real.  I think Shelly's face on the poster for Casino royale fits that description.  As for googlebombing, there is nothing wrong with that either- it's a widespread practice that helped us defeat the GOP in the 2006 midterms.  

---

by: Roatti @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 15:02:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably because (0.00 / 0)

Despise is not how I feel. I am very pro Democrat and do not despise anyone other than Republicans and what their policies have done to this country. That said I have been dismayed and dissatisfied at what I've seen Paterson and the Senate doing. But that said, I do not despise them and will not call for their ouster no matter what. (Even though those who despise the Assembly do). I will call upon them to be more progressive and change. All I can say is that if my 'take' on things is strange then we run in different progressive circles because I know many Democrats and advocates who are saying the same thing.

---

by: TruBlu @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am an "outer boro resident" (0.00 / 0)

and I was hoping for congestion pricing to pass so when I take the express bus, there won't be as many cars on the road.  

Everywhere congestion pricing has been implemented, from London to Stockholm, traffic has decreased- so I would have to ask you for sources on your contention to the contrary.

As for the money, the MTA has lots of dedicated revenue streams that actually do go into improving the system, which are a large reason it is so much better now than in the 70's and 80's.  Whether it's actually $500 million or $300 million still doesn't undo the fact that the MTA has lost several hundred millions of dollars because of congestion pricing's failure in the legislature.  

---

by: Roatti @ Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 21:40:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you are (0.00 / 0)

outer boro than you must have heard much oposition to it.

---

by: TruBlu @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 00:13:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

your own source: (0.00 / 0)

When told the money would go to prevent transit fare and toll hikes, the numbers flip and people support the plan 57 to 38.

AND people were opposed to it in London and Stokholm before those cities implemented it also.  Once it actually went into effect, it became more popular when its benefits were apparent for everyone to see.  

---

by: Roatti @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 00:25:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When told the truth ... (0.00 / 0)

That the numbers are almost certainly inflated, that the costs will be higher than projected, that the federal money that is currently coming in (such as it is) will probably be lowered as the congestion pricing fees allocate, and that the initial $8 fee will be raised quickly (as it was raised in London) then the poll numbers show...

Well, actually, there are no polls for the truth.  But I'd be willing to bet that not only outer boro people would be overwhelmingly opposed, but even lower Manhattanites might be opposed as well.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:53:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No additional infrastructure costs (0.00 / 0)

The infrastructure for congestion pricing is being built regardless. Operation Atlas will be taking pictures of everyone's license plates as they enter the city anyway. The original plan was to combine congestion pricing with Atlas (an anti-terror program). So, congestion pricing would have been a wash, with almost all of the revenue going to expand the MTA to the outer parts of the city.

It's also highly redistributive, with the funding going from the pockets of the wealthy to provide funding for poor neighborhoods.

Finally, it's true that the MTA runs at a high cost. So do most public transit operations around the country. Why? They actually pay a living wage and put safety standards in place.

---

by: pm124 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:31:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

When told they'll have lower fares and tolls. You believe that for a second? With Billions in MTA capital needs to fix current infrastructure and build massive new infrastructure to support increased ridership. I think Siena asked a follow up on belief of that and it was laughable. Fares go up whenever the MTA attempts anything.

---

by: TruBlu @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm the fellow who started doctors for congestion pricing (0.00 / 0)

Argument 1: Congestion pricing will not save lives because it will not reduce congestion.

Response: Well, in Singapore, Stockholm, and London, it seems to have reduced congestion by 30-45% (measured as the number of cars within the congestion pricing zone). Here are the stats for Singapore according to the Environmental Defense Fund: 45% reduction in cars on the road, 10 MPH increase in average driving speed (not necessarily a good thing from a health standpoint), 25% fewer accidents, a 20% increase in the use of public transportation. They conduct rigorous analyses, but are indeed partisan. It would be good to see some non-partisan data on this. But from the reduction in car use and increases in public transit we have seen from the recent increase in fuel prices, we can be fairly confident that the good old relationship between price and demand is still in effect in our new economy.

Argument 2: Hey, you guys are a bunch of phonies, what with your anonymous postings.

Response: Good point. This blog was started by me, Peter Muennig, an Assistant Professor in Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. I'll let others identify themselves if they so wish. My funding comes from the federal government. New Jersey is my only state funding, so I'll worry about Silver ruining my career once he is defeated and takes a federal post!

---

by: pm124 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:29:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The truth that never gets out (0.00 / 0)

Two words for the income story: Millionaires tax. Shame on Paterson for hanging the Assembly out to dry. Shelly was right on this one too.  

The asthma argument not only reeks of deceit, it denigrates the thousands of asthma sufferers in places like the Bronx who wouldn't see a lick of relief from CP. If Bloomberg really cared about asthma relief he would have argued to have congestion pricing on the Cross Bronx Expressway. But that doesn't impact the upper middle-class people who work in midtown.

This was so about convenience for the wealthy. Bloomberg caved into special interests, i.e., Al D'Amato lobbying successfully to get luxury buses exempted.

Can anyone explain what the (literal) exit plan was if the plan didn't work? It was so vague.  

---

by: LOBlue @ Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 02:52:56 AM UTC

Maybe so (0.00 / 0)

I would love to see the Cross-Bronx Expressway turned back into affordable housing and the nice little neighborhood it once was.

It would also be nice not to see people power return to politics.

But what does that have to do with congestion pricing?

---

by: pm124 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:33:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]