Congestion Pricing Defeat a Win for the Boroughs?
The Times is describing the death of congestion pricing behind closed doors in Albany yesterday as something of a victory for Brooklyn and Queens, since the plan “was strongly opposed by a broad array of politicians from Queens, Brooklyn and New York’s suburbs, who viewed the proposed congestion fee as a regressive measure that overwhelmingly…
The Times is describing the death of congestion pricing behind closed doors in Albany yesterday as something of a victory for Brooklyn and Queens, since the plan “was strongly opposed by a broad array of politicians from Queens, Brooklyn and New York’s suburbs, who viewed the proposed congestion fee as a regressive measure that overwhelmingly benefited affluent Manhattanites.” Brooklyn City Councilmembers were clearly divided on the issue: Last week nine voted against the measure and seven voted for it. It remains to be seen now whether the residential parking permits initiative, which was contingent upon congestion pricing legislation passing, is also dead for the foreseeable future. Whether or not the defeat was a win for Brooklyn and the other boroughs, it was obviously a bruising loss for Mayor Mike. The mayor issued a statement that says, in part: “Today is a sad day for New Yorkers and a sad day for New York City. Not only won’t we see the realization of a plan that would have cut traffic, spurred our economy, reduced pollution and improved public health, we will also lose out on nearly $500 million annually for mass transit improvements and $354 million in immediate federal funds…It takes true leadership and courage to embrace new concepts and ideas and to be willing to try something. Unfortunately, both are lacking in the Assembly today. If that wasn’t shameful enough, it takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year.” Most of the dailies have stories about how Bloomberg played a hand in the bill’s defeat by using hardball tactics with legislators. The Times notes that “many opponents said they resented the pressure and threats that they said emanated from Mr. Bloomberg’s side, including hints that the mayor would back primary candidates to run against politicians who opposed congestion pricing.”
$8 Traffic Fee for Manhattan Gets Nowhere [NY Times]
It’s (Apparently) Official: Congestion Pricing Is Dead [Streetsblog]
Bloomberg Unleashes Fury as Silver Halts Congestion Pricing [NY Daily News]
Mayor’s Duck Is Looking A Bit Lame [NY Sun]
Nine Bklyn Councilmembers Vote Against Congest Fee [Brownstoner]
Mayor Rolls Out Resident Parking Permit Proposal [Brownstoner]
Photo by neysapranger.
The congestion pricing plan as proposed had too many defects. The biggest problem is that it would have most likely had a negative affect on the surrounding areas, increasing traffic and parking. Basically shifting congestion from one area to another.
That’s why I found the Bloomberg argument that it would decrease pollution to be disingenuous. The areas where you have the highest levels of childhood asthma are in upper Manhattan and along the main thouroughfares in Brooklyn and Queens. There was no study that showed that the plan would help reduce traffic in those areas. Actually, it would seem more likely that the plan would increase these health hazards in the areas surrounding the pricing zone.
If anything, first you create residential parking and you make sure you limit the creation of huge parking lots in residential areas, then you can consider creating a pricing zone in Manhattan.
Congestion pricing could work, but it has to be done in a way that would benefit all New Yorkers.
it is not a victory for brooklyn. I live in brooklyn and most people in brooklyn that i know take the subway everyday to work. it makes me sad to think that our brooklyn reps had a hand in defeating this proposal.
10:07, 10:09 and like-minded posters – it is you who has the NIMBY mindset not Mayor Bloomberg – you want something (improved mass transit, better air quality and reduced congestion) BUT you want someone else to pay for it (i.e. not you)
Typical entitled mindset that is destroying this country.
The congestion pricing plan as proposed had too many defects. The biggest problem is that it would have most likely had a negative affect on the surrounding areas, increasing traffic and parking. Basically shifting congestion from one area to another.
That’s why I found the Bloomberg argument that it would decrease pollution to be disingenuous. The areas where you have the highest levels of childhood asthma are in upper Manhattan and along the main thouroughfares in Brooklyn and Queens. There was no study that showed that the plan would help reduce traffic in those areas. Actually, it would seem more likely that the plan would increase these health hazards in the areas surrounding the pricing zone.
If anything, first you create residential parking and you make sure you limit the creation of huge parking lots in residential areas, then you can consider creating a pricing zone in Manhattan.
Congestion pricing could work, but it has to be done in a way that would benefit all New Yorkers.
The congestion pricing plan as proposed had too many defects. The biggest problem is that it would have most likely had a negative affect on the surrounding areas, increasing traffic and parking. Basically shifting congestion from one area to another.
That’s why I found the Bloomberg argument that it would decrease pollution to be disingenuous. The areas where you have the highest levels of childhood asthma are in upper Manhattan and along the main thouroughfares in Brooklyn and Queens. There was no study that showed that the plan would help reduce traffic in those areas. Actually, it would seem more likely that the plan would increase these health hazards in the areas surrounding the pricing zone.
If anything, first you create residential parking and you make sure you limit the creation of huge parking lots in residential areas, then you can consider creating a pricing zone in Manhattan.
Congestion pricing could work, but it has to be done in a way that would benefit all New Yorkers.
I think if you appear on Housewives of New York you should be taxed for breathing.
Just another regressive tax that the city does not need. Good riddance.
Ha ha! Now the Mayor knows what it is like to fight for something and not get his way, again. His plan was a NIMBY plan if ever there was. It was not about the environment, it was about making more money for the corrupt MTA, and the other greedy fat cats of NYC.
Sniff Sniff Mayor Bloomberg!!
The MTA still can’t even figure out how to make clear announcements! They need more money for that??
If he cares about the environment, get more recycling bins around, get electric buses, the possibilities are endless, that don’t require $8 tolls!
Ha ha! Now the Mayor knows what it is like to fight for something and not get his way, again. His plan was a NIMBY plan if ever there was. It was not about the environment, it was about making more money for the corrupt MTA, and the other greedy fat cats of NYC.
Sniff Sniff Mayor Bloomberg!!
The MTA still can’t even figure out how to make clear announcements! They need more money for that??
If he cares about the environment, get more recycling bins around, get electric buses, the possibilities are endless, that don’t require $8 tolls!