Mike Hit On Tolls by Sally Goldenberg - New York Post

Read original...

Comptroller Bill Thompson yesterday blasted Mayor Bloomberg for ducking the politically sensitive issue of tolling the free East River bridges.

"Mayor Michael Bloomberg should not be given an E-ZPass on this issue. The mayor needs to lead on this issue and not hide," said Thompson, a Democrat who plans to challenge Bloomberg for mayor.

Thompson went on to criticize the MTA's proposal to toll the Brooklyn (pictured), Manhattan, Williamsburg and 59th Street bridges as a way to help plug its projected $1.2 billion budget hole.

"Placing tolls along these bridges penalizes people for living in The Bronx, Queens, Staten Island and Brooklyn boroughs, especially those who don't have the best access to subway and bus transportation," he fumed at a press conference at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Bloomberg has not taken a position on the toll plan, which was endorsed Thursday by a commission charged with devising a plan to solve the MTA's budget crisis. He did, however, stand with Gov. Paterson and former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch when they presented the proposal Thursday.

"As everyone knows, the mayor came up with a plan to get the money we need to fix our subways last year. He's working cooperatively with Gov. Paterson now to find a solution that avoids massive subway fare increases," Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said.

He was referring to Bloomberg's failed bid to institute congestion pricing earlier this year, which Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) derailed in Albany.

Silver supports Ravitch's toll plan but has said the state may not have the authority to enact it; the city's lawyers say the plan would need state approval.

Thompson also reiterated his call for the state Legislature to increase weight-based vehicle-registration fees for drivers in the MTA region, which includes the city and seven surrounding counties.

He estimated that increasing the registration charge by $100 for cars weighing 2,300 pounds or less and 9 cents for every additional pound would generate more than $1 billion annually.

Thank you Sheldon by David M. Quintana - The Queens Courier

Read original...

Thank you Sheldon

I would like to applaud the New York State Assembly, its members and Speaker Sheldon Silver, for delivering a knockout punch to Mayor Bloomberg’s wrong-headed Congestion Pricing Plan (CPP).

Much as I support the idea of reducing vehicular traffic and alleviating chronic asthma conditions in NYC, most people in Queens were very upset by the CPP. They saw it as a new regressive tax and I agree.

We in Queens have the worst public transportation in the city and the longest commutes in the nation. Folks from outside the city already take tolled bridges and tunnels, so the Mayor’s plan would have hit the people who use the free East River bridges hardest. Being a borough of middle class folks, we use these free crossings because we do not have the extra disposable income to pay for the more direct and expensive methods.

In my lifetime, I can honestly say that southern Queens always is screwed by Manhattan projects. Moreover, you know the additional CPP funds would end up paying for the 2nd Avenue subway line and the Fulton Street station in Manhattan, not spent here in Queens.

I think the proposal was just another way for the Manhattan-centric mayor to make Manhattan an island for only well-heeled, wealthy people, like himself and tourists. By making CPP so cost-prohibitive, it was just Bloomberg’s way of keeping the riff-raff from Queens from having access to our own city.

I feel we all owe a debt of gratitude to Sheldon Silver and the NYS Assembly for not allowing Mayor Bloomberg to bully the residents of Queens into a misconceived plan and for making it dead on arrival in Albany.

David M. Quintana
Ozone Park

Letter to the Editor - Congestion Pricing Setback is Best For Queens - Queens Ledger

Read original...

The Letter was also printed in the Queens Tribune but they stopped updating their online Letters to the Editor page a long time ago...lol

Dear Editor,

I would like to applaud the New York State Assembly, it's members and Speaker Sheldon Silver for delivering a knockout punch to Mayor Bloomberg's wrong-headed Congestion Pricing (CP).

Much as I support the idea of reducing vehicular traffic and alleviating chronic asthma conditions in NYC, most people in Queens were very upset by the CP. They saw it as a new regressive tax and I agree.

We in Queens have the worst public transportation in the city, and the longest commutes in the nation. Folks from outside the City already take tolled bridges and tunnels, so the Mayor's plan would've hit the people who use the free East River bridges hardest. Being a borough of middle class folks we use these free crossings because we don't have the extra disposable income to pay for the more direct and expensive methods.

There was no guarantee that CP would've increased transportation funding. I remember how when the NYS Lottery originated it was sold to the public as a way to supplement our state's education budgets. In reality, all it did was allow politicians to decrease funding from the general budget by the amount that came in from the lottery. There was no "Lock Box" provision in the CP scheme either and Mayor Bloomberg or future mayors could've deviated from the plan and diverted money from mass transportation at their whim

The Mayor tried selling the CP as an environmental issue, then why didn't he have an Environmental Impact Study performed. I guess, he's now a scientist too, but I'm not buying it.

I think most rational people understand there's a need for some sort of reduction in traffic, but the big problem here is that no one trusts the MTA or Mayor Bloomberg to use the revenues in the way that they promised. I also wonder which set of books the the MTA would've shown auditors.

There was no specific amount of funding from Washington. The monies promised depended on how many other cities went for it. And if none did, the money would still exist to be allocated another way to mass transit.

Senators Schumer, Senator Clinton and the NY congressional delegation can still try to secure and properly allocate that money to NYC's transit riderships benefit.

The Mayor's rhetoric kept saying the amount of funding ($354 million) possibly lost was huge. I think he was being somewhat disingenuous, since the the City is financing improvements to Yankee Stadium which amount to over $409 million, the last I heard the Yankees were the most profitable team in the world and they're privately owned.

So lets see, when another billionaire needs $409 million the Mayor states it's a small investment but when it comes to the publicly owned subway system $354 is a huge amount of money. Something doesn't add up.

I believe that the proposed concept of "residential parking permits" was a Pandora's box that was best left closed. We already subsidize curbside parking with our taxes, but allowing our streets to be reserved for residents is even worse. Every neighborhood with a parking problem - which means every neighborhood in Queens – would've wanted some consideration. I live near the Rockaway Blvd train station in Ozone Park and we have hundreds of cars a day circling our streets, looking for subway parking.

CP is just a regressive form of taxation. It means nothing for the wealthy (like the Mayor) who would've likely just written it off as the cost of doing business. It would mean that only the wealthy would be able to drive into Manhattan. And, the fees would keep going up, as in London, until that was true.

And don't get me started on the privacy intrusions of more cameras. Our Constitutional civil liberties were at stake. The CP proposed installing an additional 25 cameras and I'm certain that it would've only increased enabling the Mayor to monitor our comings and goings to a greater extent.

In my lifetime I can honestly say that southern Queens always gets screwed by Manhattan projects. How would the elderly or infirmed have climbed the steps on the “A” train on Liberty Avenue without any escalators or elevators? And, you know the additional CP funds would end up paying for the 2nd Ave subway line and the Fulton Street station in Manhattan, not spent here in Queens.

If the Mayor was serious about reducing traffic in the City, maybe he would instruct his Building Department to implement real environment solutions by eliminating over development of our neighborhoods and the problems it spawns. But that would negatively impact the beloved real estate industry.

Word on the street is that the Mayor used large sums of his own money and his ample influence to twist the arms of legislators to vote against their own constituents best interests and bought off environmental groups seeking their support.

When Mayor Bloomberg was running for office there was much made that being a billionaire he couldn't be bought. I think little thought was given to him being the buyer of other legislators votes, which he evidently tried to do in this case and others.

Until Queens has a reliable, efficient and comfortable way of getting into the city by public transportation, then no CP measure should be considered. It is simply not an option for most of Queens riders.

There was a way of raising more money for transportation, it was called the Commuter Tax but since it was revoked, it's elimination has cost the City over a half a billion dollars a year.

I think the Mayor should try to work with Albany on reinstating that before he starts charging Queens drivers. Why do drivers from the suburbs get to travel NYC roads for free, when we all have to pay. Where's the outrage?

As an environmental advocate, I agree wholeheartedly in reducing traffic and bronchial conditions throughout NYC, but in my eyes the CP would've brought absolutely no benefits to the communities of southern Queens nor the environment – therefore I did not support the Mayors CP scheme.

I think the proposal was just another way for the Manhattan-centric Mayor to make Manhattan an island for only well-heeled, wealthy people, like himself and tourists.

By making CP so cost-prohibitive, it was just Bloomberg's way of keeping the riff-raff from Queens from having access to our own City.

In closing, I feel we all owe a debt of gratitude to Sheldon Silver and the NYS Assembly for not allowing Mayor Bloomberg to bully the residents of Queens into a misconceived plan and for making it dead on arrival in Albany.

Sincerely,

David M. Quintana

First, Better Transit Service, Then, ? by Nicholas Briano - Rockaway Wave

I thought it should be noted that this reporter Nick Briano told me he would ("for Sure!") send me a few photos from this event...but he let me down and never sent me any...!

Read original...

Rockaway residents spoke out loudly in opposition to the Mayor's controversial congestion pricing plan, at a town hall meeting in Ozone Park on Tuesday night, hosted by City Councilman Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr.

Councilmember Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. addresses the crowd on Tuesday night during a town hall meeting to discuss congestion pricing.

The congestion pricing plan, part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's PlanNYC initiative for a cleaner city, is expected to be voted on in the coming weeks by the City Council. The plan would charge motorists $8 to enter Manhattan south of 60 Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays.

The mayor's congestion pricing expert, Rohit Aggarwala, Director of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, was on hand at the meeting to formally present the plan and to defend it to the community.

Aggarwala told the meeting participants that congestion pricing is essential to meet the demands of a growing population and to improve the air quality of the city by emphasizing the use of mass transit to and from Manhattan.

Addabbo's constituents sit through a presentation made by Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing expert, Rohit Aggarwala, outlining the potential benefits of congestion pricing.

"We are using part of the revenue to improve train and bus service to accommodate millions," he said.

Residents, however, were outraged over what they consider to be a tax on working class New Yorkers. They said that the plan was not even worth considering and were skeptical that Rockaway would benefit from improved subway and bus service, should the plan be implemented.

Democratic District Leader Lew Simon, perhaps the most vocal critic of the plan at the meeting, was angered at the present lack of transit efficiency on the peninsula and argued that congestion pricing would only add to the misery, as more people turn to mass transit for the commute to Manhattan.

"I see nothing in this plan that will improve our district at all," Simon said. "All the money will go towards taking care of Manhattan."

Simon, like Addabbo and nearly every person in attendance, was opposed to the plan, mostly due to the fact that it only benefits Manhattan environmentally and financially.

Aggarwala and Addabbo listen intently as residents come up to the podium, one at a time, to voice their displeasure with congestion pricing.

"I am nauseous from hearing your presentation," he continued. "I am opposed to your plan; it is a waste of our time. It is another tax we don't need and if you held this meeting in Rockaway I could guarantee you that every seat in the auditorium would be filled and they'd stone you."

Belle Harbor resident and retired firefighter, Joe Hartigan, had his own share of sarcasm for the Mayor's representative, arguing that Rockaway has the fewest transportation options in the city.

"Queens has five times the population of Staten Island and its residents get 400 express buses a day," he said. "We get four in Rockaway!"

"You throw money at Staten Island like a sailor on shore leave and we get nothing," Hartigan continued.

Leo Fahey, a lifetime Rockaway resident, using similar logic to that of others from Rockaway, said his son took more than four hours to get home one night from Williamsburg, Brooklyn. He elaborated that the transit system is inadequate to support a higher volume of people taking the subway and buses to work.

"How can anyone in the world and any of us in Rockaway without an adaptable transit system support this plan? It relies mainly on something that might, maybe, somewhere in the future, get better," Fahey said.

Addabbo, who voiced his strong opposition to the congestion pricing plan, said that the plan started with good intention and made for great dialogue, but it has been transformed from an environmental initiative to a plan solely based on financial gain.

He said this meeting was held to determine if his constituents feel this plan would be beneficial to their district. In an effort to determine their opinions, in addition to the public speaking portion of the evening, Addabbo took a poll before and after the meeting to see what initial thoughts were, as compared to those once his constituents understood all aspects of the plan.

As the night went on, the consensus grew against Bloomberg's plan. Most people were not convinced by Aggarwala's presentation.

Addabbo says he is against the plan due to the simple fact that it will not benefit the people of his district.

"There is no benefit to my people before congestion pricing," he said. "And there will be no benefit after. Therefore, I am against the plan."

Addabbo says the transit system must get better before the discussion on congestion pricing continues.

"We don't get new buses, we get no extra train service, and I am supposed to think the service will improve once we add 164,000 riders to our already unreliable transit system," he added.

Aggarwala counters Addabbo's belief that this is a financial issue. He contends that the mayor's plan is all about saving New York's environment.

"If we are going to grow we need to plan for our future or we will leave our children a worse city than before," he said. "Congestion pricing is just part of that solution."

City Passes Congestion Pricing Plan by Stephen Stirling - Times Ledger

Read original...

The City Council approved a plan to charge drivers to enter Manhattan below 60th Street Monday by a vote of 30-20 despite strong opposition from the Queens delegation.

In the vote, which occurred shortly before 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, Queens Council members turned down the proposal by a margin of 9-to-5. As of last week, only City Councilmen John Liu (D-Flushing) and Hiram Monserrate (D-East Elmhurst) were publicly in favor of the legislation from the borough, but they were joined by Eric Gioia (D-Sunnyside), Tom White (D-Jamaica) and James Sanders (D-Laurelton) as the tally was taken.

Though the majority of Queens representatives panned the plan, Council members from Manhattan and the Bronx voted unanimously in favor of the plan, which if approved by the state will place an $8 fee on cars coming into Manhattan below 60th Street on weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.

At a press conference following the vote, Bloomberg applauded the favorable vote and commended its supporters for having "the courage to stand up and do what was right."

City Councilman James Gennaro (D-Fresh Meadows), chairman of the Council's Environmental Protection Committee, offered a less optimistic view.

"The mayor cut a lot of deals with Council members, offering them fund-raisers and other kinds of inducements to get them to vote for a bill that they didn't believe in. That's what happened here. Shame on them," Gennaro said.

Council members Gennaro, Tony Avella (D-Bayside), Peter Vallone (D-Astoria), David Weprin (D-Hollis), Helen Sears (D-Jackson Heights), Leroy Comrie (D-St. Albans), Melinda Katz (D-Forest Hills), Dennis Gallagher (R-Middle Village) and Joseph Addabbo (D-Howard Beach) voted against the plan.

Polls have indicated that opposition to the proposal is widespread in Queens, and several of the borough's politicians and community leaders have derided the concept as an unfair tax on residents who are underserved by mass transit options.

The legislation will now go before the state Legislature, which must approve the plan by April 7 to make the city eligible for $354 million in federal funding that Bloomberg says will go toward short-term transit improvements. As part of an agreement with the U.S. Transportation Department the improvements would be put in place before the implementation of congestion pricing and include the creation of seven new bus routes in Queens and additional buses on 13 existing bus routes headed toward Manhattan.

Liu, who heads the Council's Transportation Committee,said the responsibility for carrying congestion pricing will fall squarely on the shoulders of Bloomberg and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should it be passed by the state next week.

"The big leap of faith, of course, is that the MTA can be relied upon, which I think with the new leadership I'm more confident with than I have been in previous years," he said.

State Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Fresh Meadows), an active opponent of the plan, called the changes inadequate and said he did not expect the plan to get by the Assembly. He chided the City Council for approving the plan on the state's self-imposed congestion pricing deadline of March 31.

"We're working on the budget right now and the only time that congestion pricing has come up it's been booed and ridiculed," Lancman said. "We're not going to jump through hoops and call time out on the state's budget's process because the Council wasn't finished with its horse-trading until 6 p.m. on the day of the deadline."

While both White and Sanders had said they had concerns about congestion pricing, each said they were undecided heading into the vote.

Gioia, who had said publicly he was against the plan as recently as last month, said he believes the city must act now and while the plan is "not perfect," it has improved substantially.

The legislation passed by the Council Monday is a slightly tweaked version of the plan Bloomberg presented a year ago. The most notable changes included the adjustment of the congestion fee zone border from 86th Street to 60th Street, the addition a residential parking permit plan and exemptions for certain low-income and handicapped drivers.

Color-Coded Congestion Pricing by Elizabeth Benjamin - The Daily Politics - NY Daily News

Read original...

With the Assembly Democrats scheduled to conference congestion pricing today and the Senate poised to take up the pay-to-drive measure any moment now, this map created by Justin Kray at the Pratt Center for Community Development how Council members voted could come in handy for gaming out the pressures on various downstate lawmakers.

Of particular interest are areas where term-limited Council members are considering challenges to incumbent state legislators.

For example, in Brooklyn, Councilman Kendall Stewart, who is likely to primary Sen. Kevin Parker, flipped to vote "yes" on the plan.

In Queens, Councilman Hiram Monserrate (another "yes") is eyeing another run against fellow Democrat, Sen. John Sabini, and recently learned he has the backing of Mayor Bloomberg in that endeavor.

Two likely Democratic challengers to incumbent Republican senators in Queens, Councilmen Jim Gennaro (Sen. Frank Padavan) and Joe Addabbo (Sen. Serphin Maltese) both voted "no" on congestion pricing.

Last summer, the Senate voted 39-19 to create a commission to study traffic mitigation techniques that eventually proposed congestion pricing. Eight Democrats sided with the GOP majority on that vote,

The no votes that day (July 26, 2007) were: No: Adams, Diaz, Dilan, Flanagan, Fuschillo, Hannon, Huntley, Johnson (Craig, not Owen), Klein, LaValle, Maltese, Marcellino, Morahan, Parker, Sabini, Savino, Skelos, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins. (Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery and Oppenheimer were excused; Carl Kruger was absent).

Two city GOP senators - Golden and Padavan - joined in the "yes" votes.

The Assembly approved the commission 122-16.

Town Hall Meeting Attendees Give Thumbs Down To Congestion Pricing by Stephen Geffon - Queens Ledger

Queens Ledger

Just before the City Council made their final decision to recommend Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan to the state legislature, residents of South Queens gave the plan a giant "thumbs down" at a town hall meeting on March 25 at JHS 210 in Ozone Park.

Councilman Joseph Addabbo, who sponsored the meeting, said he is against the plan because he believes it will not benefit his constituents. Addabbo, who was one of the 20 council members who voted against congestion pricing, added that New York City's transportation system must get better before the discussion about congestion pricing continues.

The councilman and his staff handed out red, yellow, and green index cards to the audience. Addabbo asked them to indicate if they were against the plan (red), unsure (yellow), or in favor of congestion pricing (green). Two votes were taken, before and after the plan presentation by Rohit Aggarwala, director of the Mayor's Office of Long-term Planning.

In the first vote residents expressed their disapproval by a margin of 48-2. The second poll showed that no resident had been persuaded to change his or her mind.

In his 45-minute PowerPoint presentation, Aggarwala extolled the benefits the congestion pricing plan would bring to city residents: cleaner air, funding for major transit improvements, less traffic that will lead to quicker bus commute times, less cut-through traffic and noise pollution in neighborhoods citywide, quicker commutes and lower fuel costs for those who continue to drive.

Democratic District Leader Lew Simon, a resident of Rockaway, told Aggarwala, "I listened to all your great plans, but I see nothing to improve our district, which includes Rockaway, Broad Channel, Howard Beach, and Ozone Park. All I see is that your money is going to go to Manhattan."

Simon advocated reactivating the Old Rockaway Beach Line, which he said is a complete win for every part of his district. He said that if activated the train would take 32 minutes from Penn station to Rockaway and to Ozone Park in 18 minutes.

Regarding the congestion pricing plan, Simon told Aggarwala, "Are you going to give us all these promises or no promises, take our money from us and give us nothing? I'm vehemently against the Mayor's proposal. It's a waste of our time. It's utterly ridiculous."

David Quintana of Ozone Park called congestion pricing a "regressive tax". He said, "It's really about Manhattan where people walk to work, making life better for Manhattanites."

A Howard Beach resident discussing the plan with a friend was overheard by a reporter to remark, "Taxation without representation."

Frank Gulluscio, a resident of Howard Beach and a Democratic District Leader, said congestion pricing is not an option for south Queens residents, adding, "It's no way of raising more money.

Betty Braton, a Howard Beach resident and chairwoman of Community Board 10, said that while the board has not taken a position in regard to the mayor's congestion pricing plan, that it is the board's position that there must be significant transportation improvements in place in southern Queens prior to the establishment of any congestion pricing plan.

"Community Board 10 believes that the current discussion regarding the mayor's proposal must include ways to improve public transportation and traffic flow in the 'outer' boroughs rather than be focused only on the concerns in Manhattan," said Braton.

Put That Way, $354M Isn’t That Much Cash by Patrick Arden - New York Metro

Read original...

Champions of congestion pricing wonder why any politician would turn down $354 million. The feds have offered just that to implement Mayor Bloomberg’s traffic fee.

But the city and the state already spend that kind of dough on projects that don’t seem as vital as mass transit.

They’ve committed $403 million to the Yankee Stadium project, for example, and just one city program granted $409 million in property tax breaks last year to Midtown office towers like the MetLife Building and such fast-food outlets as McDonald’s.

City workers have staged protests against a $410 million payroll system that uses biometric devices, including palm scanners. “They say it will reduce ‘buddy punching,’” said a union spokesman, “but we’ve not had one case of that in ten years.”

“While $354 million sounds like a huge amount of money, it will be almost gone before you start congestion pricing,” said Brooklyn Councilman Lewis Fidler.

The MTA puts its necessary upgrades at $767 million. The tolling system would take $73 million, and the operating cost is $62 annually.

But tolls are supposed to net $491 million a year, and that money would go to the MTA, which by 2010 could be handing over 20 percent of its operating budget just to service its debt. Even with congestion pricing, the MTA needs $9 billion more to pay for its new five-year capital plan.

It goes quickly

A handful of things that cost a bit more than the $354 million in federal funds the city will get for congestion pricing:

• The city and state’s contribution to the Yankee Stadium project

• A city payroll system that uses biometric devices to track workers

• Tax breaks to landlords and developers under just one program

• The scrapped 7 line station at 10th Avenue and 41st Street

Traffic Plan Deadline Nears as Debates Rage by Stephen Stirling - Times Ledger

Times Ledger - Traffic plan deadline nears as debates rage

With just days remaining before a federal deadline to approve Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, much of the legislative discussion out of both Albany and City Hall swirled around the controversial traffic proposal this week.

If congestion pricing, which would charge cars $8 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, is not approved by both the city and state legislatures by March 31, the city will become ineligible for more than $350 million in federal funding earmarked for city transit improvements.

The plan, introduced by Bloomberg nearly a year ago, has been widely unpopular among Queens politicians, many of whom argue that the $8 charge is an unfair tax on middle-class residents in the borough who are currently underserved by mass transit.

But the plan picked up a key supporter last week in newly sworn-in Gov. David Patterson, who introduced legislation approved Friday by the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission, which calls for the implementation of a congestion pricing pilot plan.

"Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns of the residents of New York City and its suburbs: the need to reduce congestion on our streets and roads, and thereby reduce pollution and global warming, and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvements," Paterson said.

Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Saratoga Springs) introduced the legislation in the state Senate Monday, an action that drew praise from Bloomberg.

"Together with the governor, we will continue to work to address the concerns of our partners in the state Legislature and the City Council - including concerns about the impact on lower-income drivers and making sure we receive revenue from commuters who use Port Authority crossings," Bloomberg said. "This is another step in the right direction."

City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan spoke in support of congestion pricing at the final City Council public hearing on the topic at City Hall Monday. Sadik-Khan emphasized the need for the city and state to pass the bill so the city could receive $354 million from the U.S. Transportation Department, which she said would go toward short-term transit improvements across the city designed to accommodate the additional onslaught of commuters on the city's mass transit system once congestion pricing was implemented.

The planned short-term improvements include the creation of seven new bus routes in Queens and additional buses on 13 existing bus routes headed toward Manhattan.

"The choice is clear: We can accept increasing congestion and the damage it will inflict on our economy and quality of life, and begin to fall back in the worldwide competition for global leadership," Sadik-Khan said. "Or we can act to reshape our transportation network and ensure that New York maintains its position as the world's premier city."

City Councilwoman Melinda Katz (D-Forest Hills), however, blasted the plan, questioning Sadik-Khan on where the $120 million needed to implement the infrastructure for congestion pricing would come from if all of the federal funding went to transit improvements.

"The city would pay for it up front and be repaid through the income generated from congestion pricing," Sadik-Khan said.

"So essentially we're getting $354 million just to get permission to tax ourselves," Katz shot back.

Queens City Councilmen David Weprin (D-Hollis), Joseph Addabbo (D-Howard Beach) and Leroy Comrie (D-Jamaica) also detailed their reservations on the plan at the hearing, held by the City Council's State and Federal Legislation Committee.

City Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing), one of just two Queens Council members - the other being Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D-East Elmhurst) - to publicly support the plan, said congestion pricing will benefit the city, but only if the city's transit system is improved swiftly and money generated from the plan is quickly used toward further improvements.

"This is crunch time," he said. "I would suggest that you stick to your time lines."

Town Hall Forum - Congestion Pricing - MS 210 - March 25th Hosted by Councilman Joe Addabbo...

On March 25th, Councilman Joe Addabbo held a Town Hall Forum concerning Congestion Pricing...Members of the Mayors Office were on hand to give a dog and pony show presentation - I have to admit the powerpoint presentation was well done and had lots of nice photos - by Rohit T, Aggarwala, Director of Long Term Planning and Sustainability.

Councilman Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. introducing Rohit Aggarwala, Mayor's Office of Operation - Director of Long Term Planning and Sustainability

Before the presentation CM Addabbo had given each member of the audience three index cards - red, yellow and green - and asked them to raise the one which denoted how they felt about congestion pricing...Red if you were against, Yellow if you weren't sure and Green if you approved of it...By my estimate, the Red cards were about 99% of those raised...

Community Board Chairperson Betty Braton

Mr. Aggararwala then gave his talk with the pretty power-point presentation....When he was done, members of the public were able to ask questions and make statements (my written statement is below)...I found Mr. Aggarwala to be very long-winded in his responses, as if he was filibustering to kill time and run out the clock...


When all was said and done, CM Addabbo asked for another show of the index cards and Mr. Aggarwala had failed to convice a single person...I would estimate that there were 50 people attending and at least 48 Red cards were put up...

Locust Grove Civic Association President Donna Gilmartin - Rockaway resident Leo Fahey in foreground

My Statement

Town Hall Forum – March 25^th – Held at MS 210

Much as I like the idea of reducing vehicles and traffic in Manhattan and throughout NYC, due to my active involvement with civic associations in Queens I have to report that most people I speak to are very upset by this. They see it as a tax on them, and for the most part, I agree that they're right.

We in Queens have the WORST public transportation in the city, and the longest commutes in the nation. Folks from outside the borough already take tolled bridges and tunnels, so this will hit the people who use the free bridges - such as the 59^th Street bridge - hardest. Being a borough of middle class working folks we take the free ones because we don't have the extra disposable income to pay for the more direct (and expensive) methods.

There is NO GUARANTEE that CP will increase transportation funding. Just like the lottery was supposed to benefit education, all it did was allow the politicians to decrease funding from the general budget by the amount that came in from the lottery. That is all CP pricing does. There is nothing that will keep them from cutting the general funding to transportation, assuming that the CP money even ends up earmarked for transportation.

For example, in today's NY Times: The Metropolitan Transportation Authority postponed $30 million in service improvements that it had promised in connection with recent fare and toll increases, saying its finances had worsened sharply.

People understand the need for this, but the big problem here is that
they don't trust the MTA, Mayor Bloomberg or even city government to use the revenues in the way that's been promised

There is no specific amount of known dollars from Washington for CP funding. The funds promised depend on how many other cities go for it. And if none do (including NY) then the money still exists to be allocated another way to mass transit. Senators Schumer and Clinton can try to properly allocate that money for us. Except the Iraq war will eat it up, as it does all our other funding, leaving us to fight for the scraps.

The concept of "residential parking permits" is a pandora's box that is best left closed. We all subsidize the curbside parking that everyone takes for granted, but allowing those streets to be reserved for residents is even worse. Every neighborhood with a parking problem (which means every neighborhood in Queens) will be screaming for the same consideration. I live near the Rockaway Blvd train station in Ozone Park and we have hundreds of cars a day circling our streets, from 9am to 9pm. Why should Astoria get protected from commuter parking when we don't? The instant that resident parking is allowed in Astoria or elsewhere, every other community will demand it also.

CP is just a regressive form of taxation. It means nothing for the wealthy who will likely just write it off as the cost of doing business. It will mean that only the wealthy will be able to drive into Manhattan. The prices will keep going up (see London) until that is true.

And don't get me started on the privacy intrusions of more cameras. There is the issue of civil liberties also at stake, with so many cameras being proposed. DoT Commissioner Sadik-Khan has put the number of cameras at 25 and I'm sure that will increase to over 50 additional cameras. So the government will be monitoring our comings and goings to a greater extent than presently.

In my lifetime I can honestly say that Queens always gets screwed by Manhattan projects. We got a useless 63rd street tunnel. The MTA has given is a useless V train and packed E trains. Gee, who could have predicted that? I bet CP funds end up paying for the 2nd Ave line and the Fulton Street Shrine.

Now we get a massive city-sponsored rezoning of Jamaica that will dump thousands of more riders onto the E/F line. The proposal for the rezoning estimated an additional 200 person-rides per day. 200. Sure.

Once Queens has a reasonable way of getting into the city, we can reconsider CP. Until then, CP is not an option for most of Queens riders.

There is a way of raising more money, it's called the Commuter Tax. Reinstate that before you start charging Queens drivers. Why do drivers from the suburbs get to travel NYC roads for free, when we will have to pay.

Where is the outrage?

In my eyes congestive pricing brings absolutely no benefits to the communities of South Queens – therefore I cannot support CP at this time, although I agree wholeheartedly in reducing traffic throughout NYC

In closing, I think the proposal is just another way for Mayor Bloomberg to make Manhattan an island for only well-heeled, wealthy people and tourists, By making CP so cost-prohibitive, it's just a way to keep the riff-raff from the outer boroughs from having access to our own City.

At this time, I have no alternative but to oppose the CP as proposed by Mayor Bloomberg.

David M. Quintana

NY Post: N.Y. Highways on the Water by Arthur E. Imperatore

Read original...

July 12, 2007 -- The waters surrounding Manhattan are natu ral highways and a vital transportation link that will help Mayor Bloomberg achieve his visionary congestion-pricing plan.

The existing capacity of NY Waterway and other private ferry operators can transport more than 90,000 commuters in and out of Manhattan each workday. With added investment in ferries, terminals and buses to link those terminals to other neighborhoods, there's almost no limit to the number of people who could commute by water.

Setting up a ferry/bus route is the most efficient and flexible form of mass transit. If our region is to grow and prosper, leaders in New York and New Jersey can and must find ways to get more people out of their cars and into trains, buses, subways - and ferries.

Yes, congestion pricing will be good for private ferry operators, especially NY Waterway, the company I founded 20 years ago. But let's look at the facts. This morning, more than 16,000 people will ride our ferries into Manhattan. They'll park 6,000 cars in New Jersey - 6,000 cars that won't clog Manhattan streets today. And we can do more.

Since we receive no operating subsidy from any government agency, our customers pay more than commuters on subsidized mass transit. Using mostly federal funds, government agencies have built terminals for us - but we pay rent for the terminals. And our only source of revenue to pay that rent, and to pay for crews, boats and diesel oil is our customers.

What our customers get is time. Our ferries save customers up to two hours each day in commuting time. They make it from Weehawken to Wall Street in under 20 minutes; from Monmouth County, N.J., to Wall Street in 40 minutes.

Ferries will play a big role in the development of the Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx waterfronts, which will become more attractive because ferry commuting avoids congestion-pricing fees. A ferry takes less than 10 minutes to get from Greenpoint in Brooklyn to Wall Street.

Subsidized ferry fares, paid from some part of the congestion-pricing fee, would encourage even more commuters to leave their cars behind.

Ferry terminals, linked to surrounding neighborhoods by bus, are the fastest and cheapest form of transportation infrastructure. Among the routes we could create:

* West 70th Street to Lower Manhattan, a 15-20 minute trip for residents of Riverside South and the surrounding area, reducing traffic on the West Side and relieving pressure on the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 subway lines.

* Randalls Island to Lower Manhattan, a 25-minute trip for Queens/Long Island commuters who could park in the hundreds of spaces under the Triborough Bridge, taking traffic off the FDR Drive.

* Midland Beach in Staten Island to Lower Manhattan, a 22-minute trip, cutting traffic on the Verazzano Bridge-Gowanus Expressway corridor.

* Jamaica Bay service, with stops in Rockaway and at Floyd Bennett Field or Sheepshead Bay and in Bay Ridge, taking traffic off the Belt Parkway.

With the vision and courage of leaders such as Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the possibilities are enormous.

Government support, via direct operating subsidies or purchase and leaseback of ferries and buses, would benefit commuters, encourage development of waterfront communities, make the waterfront more accessible and - most important - improve the quality of life for all of us by keeping cars off our streets.

Arthur E. Imperatore is president and founder of NY Waterway, the nation's largest privately operated commuter-ferry system.

NY Post: New Yorkers Say Yes To 'Congestion' Question: Poll by Fredric U. Dicker...

A poll yesterday showed that an overwhelming number of New Yorkers familiar with the benefits of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion-pricing plan support it.

The survey, conducted for a pro-plan group by Penn, Schoen & Berland, found 41 percent of residents of the city and the suburbs backed the plan when first asked, compared to just 13 percent opposed. Forty-six percent said they didn't know enough to form an opinion.

When those polled were told of potential plan benefits, such as ending gridlock and reducing pollution-related health problems, support for the proposal jumped to 81 percent, according to the Campaign for New York's Future, which funded the survey.

Meanwhile, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) told WROW-AM in Albany that the Legislature probably wouldn't approve Bloomberg's proposal before the Legislature's scheduled summer recess next week.

"I think it is unlikely we can take action," said Silver, who has repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of the plan.

Campaign for New York's Future spokesman Michael O'Loughlin said the poll showed that the more New Yorkers learn of Bloomberg's plan, "the more they like it."

However, in a separate statement, the polling firm noted that after being told that the plan would impose an $8 "congestion fee" on cars entering Manhattan below 86th Street during working hours, New Yorkers split 46 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed.

Bloomberg told WROW that he would urge Gov. Spitzer to call a special legislative session if the Legislature doesn't act on its own to approve his plan.

He repeated his contention that some $500 million in special federal transportation funds would be lost if the plan isn't approved.

fredric.dicker@nypost.com

New York Times: In Legislators’ Scrutiny, Traffic Proposal Faces Hard Questioning by By Nicholas Confessore...

New York State lawmakers gave a cordial but cool reception yesterday to the congestion pricing plan proposed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, asking whether it amounted to a regressive tax on middle-class drivers and whether its costs were worth the promised benefits.

The plan, which would charge cars and trucks a flat fee to drive in Manhattan below 86th Street, earned crucial support this week when it was endorsed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and by federal transportation officials. The city is under consideration for as much as $500 million in federal grants for a pilot congestion pricing plan, enough to pay for all the start-up costs of the system.

Under the plan, it would cost $8 to drive a car and $21 to drive a truck into the congestion zone between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays, when traffic in Manhattan is worst. But those fees, like many elements of the sweeping city-planning initiative Mr. Bloomberg unveiled last month, would require Albany’s approval.

Speaking at an Assembly hearing in Midtown Manhattan yesterday before a mostly supportive audience of labor leaders and environmental and mass transit advocates, Mr. Bloomberg argued that congestion pricing would bring benefits beyond merely reducing traffic in the city’s central business district, from new revenue for subway improvements to lower asthma rates among city children and reduced carbon dioxide emissions from the city over all.

“When idling cars and trucks stack up on our roads and at our tunnels and bridges, they produce more than just ulcers and hair-trigger tempers,” the mayor said. “They pump deadly pollution into the air that we and our children breathe.”

But Mr. Bloomberg did not appear to make many inroads among the more than a dozen members of the State Assembly who appeared at the hearing yesterday, including many from the boroughs outside of Manhattan and the city’s suburbs. Indeed, rather than resolve any battles, Mr. Bloomberg’s answers seemed only to draw the lines for future ones in Albany.

“There are still a lot of questions that have to be answered and have not been answered,” said Herman D. Farrell Jr., a Manhattan Democrat. “This present bill, as it’s given to us, it’s like the Ragu commercial, ‘It’s in there.’ But it’s not.”

Cities and towns in New York generally must seek state approval to institute new fees and taxes, as well as to create new public authorities, as Mr. Bloomberg has proposed.

The hearing did feature occasional light moments. Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat, expressed civil liberties concerns about the cameras that would be installed to track cars as they drive in and out of Manhattan. He asked Mr. Bloomberg what people would think if President Bush proposed a similar plan.

“If George Bush had come out for motherhood and apple pie, everybody would be against it,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

Mr. Bloomberg tried several times to defuse skepticism about the plan by pointing out that it called for only a three-year pilot project, many costs of which could be paid through the federal grants. But several members challenged him on the point, saying that the legislation as proposed left it up to city officials whether or not to keep the system in place at the conclusion of the pilot phase.

“It’s entirely at the mayor’s discretion whether or not to continue the project,” said Rory I. Lancman, a Queens Democrat. Mr. Farrell noted that state officials had already given the mayor broad policy powers in one area — control of the city’s schools — and that “a lot of people are not happy now.”

Some lawmakers also questioned Mr. Bloomberg’s plans to create a new public authority to control the roughly $380 million in revenue the program would obtain each year. Under the legislation, which was introduced in the Senate on Thursday, that authority would also give the city more power over the completion of some major projects, like the Second Avenue subway.

Mr. Spitzer, among others, has said he would prefer that that money remain in the control of existing authorities like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or the Port Authority.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Mr. Bloomberg was asked if he might be willing to part with the new authority if it would help push through the bill.

“I think we’d be happy to talk about anything,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “There’s nothing that we shouldn’t be willing to talk about.”

Precisely how the proposal will be received more broadly among lawmakers in Albany remains unclear. Only two weeks remain in the legislative session there, and the congestion proposal is only one of several elements of the mayor’s plans that require legislative approval, to say nothing of the governor’s and lawmakers’ own priorities.

But Scott M. Stringer, a former assemblyman who is now Manhattan’s borough president, said he thought the hearing had moved the proposal forward.

“I got a sense that there’s great possibilities here, based on the questions asked and the mayor’s responses, and that there is plenty of time to make something happen,” said Mr. Stringer, who has endorsed Mr. Bloomberg’s plans, along with a broad coalition of businesses, unions and civic groups. “Two weeks is a lifetime in the legislative process.”

Ray Rivera contributed reporting.

New York Times: Queens Leader Supports Bloomberg’s Traffic Plan by Ray Rivera...

The Bloomberg administration’s plan to charge drivers in the busiest parts of Manhattan won support yesterday from Representative Joseph Crowley, the influential chairman of the Queens Democratic Party, whose endorsement could help reshape the fight where resistance to the plan has been among the strongest, in the boroughs outside Manhattan.

The congressman, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, announced his support at a news conference at Grand Central Terminal, standing alongside Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and representatives of groups that support the plan.

Mr. Crowley said that although the proposal might require some changes, “the overall plan — and congestion pricing is just a part of it — will make this a more livable city and make it easier to attract the best and the brightest not only from around the country but from around the world.”

The mayor has been on a feverish pace to try to win legislative approval for the plan before the close of Albany’s regular session on June 21. Many Queens Democrats in the Assembly and members of the City Council have been among the plan’s most ardent opponents. Last week, however, Mr. Bloomberg racked up crucial endorsements from Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the Bush administration, which said the city could be eligible for up to $500 million in federal grants if a congestion pricing plan were in place within the next three months.

Mr. Crowley was elected to Congress in 1998. Before then, he served in the Assembly for 12 years and was the handpicked successor to Thomas J. Manton, the powerful Queens party boss who died last year.

“He has considerable weight in Queens,” said Joseph Mercurio, a political consultant. “I would think that if he’s moved on this, he already knows people are moving or he knows he could move them.”

Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor at the Baruch School of Public Affairs, said Mr. Crowley’s support “sends a powerful signal.”

The mayor is “getting support where he needs it most,” Mr. Muzzio said. “The opposition is coming from Queens and Brooklyn, and him being a county leader says to his county people and State Assembly people that I’m on board with this.”

But some lawmakers who have already staked out a public position against the plan said Mr. Crowley’s involvement, no matter how influential, would not change their minds.

“I have enormous respect for Joe, and he represents areas of Queens and the Bronx that will be impacted by congestion pricing,” said Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, a Queens Democrat. “But reasonable people can disagree.”

City Councilman David I. Weprin and his brother, Assemblyman Mark Weprin, Queens Democrats whose districts overlap, echoed those sentiments.

The congestion pricing proposal is a central part of the long-range sustainability plan Mr. Bloomberg unveiled in April and could be a defining element of his legacy as mayor. The plan calls for charging cars $8 and large commercial trucks $21 to drive into Manhattan below 86th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The mayor says the plan would encourage people to leave their cars at home and would raise $380 million a year to improve and expand mass transit options like subways, buses and ferries.

But opponents say the fees would be a regressive tax on the middle class, and they question the ripple effects the plan would have on traffic and parking outside the zone. Mr. Lancman as well as the Weprin brothers also oppose the plan because, they say, inadequate mass transit options leave many of their constituents with no choice but to drive, with improvements years away.

Mr. Crowley said the mayor’s plans would produce the revenue needed to speed up such improvements, including adding more bus and rail stops in his Bronx and Queens district.

He and the mayor pointed specifically to plans to add new Metro-North Railroad stations in Co-op City and Parkchester in the Bronx and to activate dormant Long Island Rail Road stations in Corona and Elmhurst, Queens, communities that historically have been underserved by mass transit.

The New York Observer: Bloomberg Gun Ad, Bloomberg Congestion Ad...

Here's the latest ad from Mike Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition, whose aim is to block the Tiahrt amendment, which critics say unnecessarily prevents law enforcement officials from tracking gun sales.

The ad features the wife of an officer killed by an illegally purchased gun. She tearfully says, "So please, ask Congress to protect police officers and not criminals."

As this one is being emailed out, I'm hearing about another pro-Bloomberg ad running on New York 1 News about congestion pricing.

It's wall-to-wall Bloomberg.