View From The Middle
...And They're Going To Try Congestion Pricing AGAIN?
By Charles Rogers

I guess it's my turn to join the crowd about the congestion pricing thing. As you probably know, had the measure passed both houses of the state legislature and had it been signed by Governor Paterson, the bill would have charged private vehicles $8 and trucks $21 to go into Manhattan below 60th Street. For implementing the plan, the federal government would have given New York City about $350 million to help the MTA and fund other traffic-related activities.

Well, it didn't pass. It didn't even get to a vote by either the State Assembly or the Senate, much less hit the Governor's desk. And I'm glad. I didn't want it from the start, frankly.

Prompted by Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the envision-ed plan supposedly would have reduced pollution. It also would have reduced traffic during the week by, well, a lot. Also, Mayor Mike would have been happy - a lot - because he would have seen that $350 mill., which is always a pleasure to a billionaire businessman, come floating up from Washington and, presumably, start putting bandages on all those sore-prone appendages called New York Mass Transit. No getting around the fact that we could always use the money to give us more and better-operated trains and buses and maybe even work on that Second Avenue subway debacle, as my colleague Neil S. Friedman said in his column last week, correctly noting that congestion pricing would have cut pollution and been a boon to the environment.

I'm surprised, though, that the mayor didn't think this thing through as thoroughly as he could have - or had someone think it out better for him.

I like Bloomberg and I think he has the welfare of New Yorkers in mind at every point, but did he really believe those assembly members and senators in both houses of the legislature would completely ignore the wishes of their constituents? A Quinnipiac poll issued last week said 56 percent of suburban voters and 59 percent of city voters, as well as 47 percent of upstate voters opposed the plan. Only 32 percent liked it.

Of course, it wouldn't be beyond reason for those from Manhattan districts to like it. Hell, they wouldn't have to pay the eight bucks. But those in the outlying boroughs who wanted to travel to midtown and thereabouts certainly would not want to pay for the "privilege" every time. The theatre industry probably wouldn't suffer too much because their presentations are after regular business hours, except for matinee, which are essentially for tourists anyway. However, think of the other businesses; those that rely on deliveries of goods - by truck - from outside the borderline. At $21 a pop, those truckers would have to raise their prices to the retailer, and you know where that will come from eventually. Even the tourists will be hurt. Also, how long will the stores be able to keep it up?

I have a friend who shops at Saks and Lord & Taylor and Bloomingdales and those wonderful stores and shops that make buying in Manhattan not only a pleasurable experience, but realllll classy! It's part of what the city is all about, after all. But, hey, even if it's just another eight bucks tacked onto the price of the item, why shouldn't the buyer fugheddaboudit and go to the Lord & Taylor in New Brunswick or in a quaint mall in Lynbrook, Long Island? Eventually, those exclusive shops and department stores in the middle of Manhattan will find trouble surviving on just tourist money and move out to New Jersey or Long Island.

Mayor Bloomberg had patterned his proposal after a plan that began in 2003 in England. Although re-ports he mentioned when he proposed it to New York's city council and then the state legislature stated it had been successful in London and some other capital cities, it was still controversial and the jury's not in yet in as to whether congestion pricing is, in fact, fully successful, either from its effect on the local environment or from a commerce standpoint.

One of the factors we're not hearing too much about is that, well, in London they already widened the target area last year. That's right. It would lead

Continued on page 12 one to believe that if they've done so there, what would prevent them from doing it here? Remember, Bloomberg & Co. originally wanted to start this thing at 86th Street, not 60th. There's no doubt in my mind that after four years the program here would be expanded - to at least 86th Street.

Another point: What's to prevent them from raising the price? Let's face it, if they need money, congestion pricing will be one place they'll get it. And yes, they've already raised the price in merry old England.

And, oh, yeah - another point: What about the $350 million? Do you really think it will all go for its intended purpose? I trust Bloomberg, but, especially now, with this slush fund debacle and people fooling around with our money all over the place, I don't trust our city council any farther than I can throw Speaker Christine Quinn.

Latest word is that the plan will be slipped into the city council's agenda in the near future - only this time it will be in the form of charging tolls on city bridges. Let's hear the yelling and gnashing of teeth from our anti-pollution friends now while they envision inhaling exhaust fumes from around the toll booths during rush hour (cough, cough).

Reader Comments

No comments have been posted. Be the first!

Other Stories With Comments:
Article	Comments
Golden City: Bought, Burned, Bought Again	1