Mayor Bloomberg is still pushing hard for congestion-pricing in New York. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like the state legislature will approve his plan in time for the city to receive a $500 million federal traffic-reduction grant. From the Associated Press:

The U.S. Department of Transportation plans to choose up to three cities for pilot programs to combat traffic and pollution, providing up to $500 million for each winner to implement the plan… New York state Senate leader Joseph Bruno, a Republican, says Monday is the federal government’s “drop-dead date” for New York to commit itself to Bloomberg’s proposal.

[…]

Supporters of Bloomberg’s plan argue that hard choices are required for New York City’s future. They also cite the immediate benefits: Clearing the air in “hot spots” that threaten children’s health; reducing traffic congestion in a choked Manhattan striving to remain the world’s financial epicenter; and the lure of up to $500 million in federal funds. The Bloomberg administration predicts that street traffic would decrease by 6 percent in lower Manhattan during the three-year pilot project as more people use public transit.

But approval of Bloomberg’s plan in Albany will likely require deft diplomacy, bipartisan cooperation and a thick skin in a Legislature long criticized as slow, dysfunctional and ruled absolutely by each chamber’s majority party: Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Assembly.

It would be a shame for the city to lose out on that money, especially since, according to Bloomberg, $300 million of it would be used to fund immediate transit improvements.

New York Legislature: Take it from a resident of a city that’s lost it’s share of federal transportation funds: You want this money.

Ever since my little brother moved to New York, I’ve started paying closer attention to what goes on there. What’s going on right now is worth sharing.

Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a series of measures that would accommodate growth (a million more people expected by 2030) and reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. The most promising of the measures? A congestion charge.

Under the plan, the city would charge $8 for cars and $21 for commercial trucks that enter Manhattan below 86th Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays. The charge would be $4 for drivers within Manhattan, and several exemptions would apply. No one would be charged on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive or the West Side Highway. There would be no charge for moving cars to comply with alternate side parking, and there would be no charge for taxis.

[…]

Later, Mary E. Peters, the United States secretary of transportation, issued a statement praising the plan as “the kind of bold thinking leaders across the country need to embrace if we hope to win the battle against traffic congestion.” The Nassau County executive, Thomas R. Suozzi, who has many constituents who commute by car to Manhattan, also was enthusiastic. “People’s first reaction is they don’t want to pay,” he said. “But getting them to switch to mass transit benefits us all.”

(Source: New York Times)

The congestion charge is also, for obvious reasons, the most controversial of the measures. NYC’s Streetsblog (easily my favorite transit blog) details some of the objections:

Representative Anthony Weiner:

While I applaud the mayor for focusing on a long-term sustainability plan for the city, in this case the cure seems to be worse than the disease. We must look at innovative ways to face the challenges created by the city’s own success, but a regressive tax on working middle-class families and small-business owners shouldn’t be one of them.

My take: The fact that this conversation is taking place at all is huge. If New York manages to move the issue beyond conversation, my Christmas wish might come true sooner than I expected.

Dear Santa,

I’ve done my best to be a good bus chick this year. I always have my fare ready when it’s time to pay; I keep my headphones turned down; and I never, ever take up more than one seat when the bus is full. I’ve held up my end of the bargain, Santa, so I’m hoping you’ll get started on yours. Remember that congestion-pricing plan I’ve been asking for? …

Thanks to my incessant nagging, Santa knows what congestion pricing is. In case you don’t: It’s a system that charges drivers for entering busy city centers during certain hours. A number of cities, including Singapore, Stockholm, and Oslo, have congestion-pricing plans, but London’s is the largest and easily the most well known. London’s effort is, of course, imperfect and controversial, but there is no disputing that it has reduced congestion and raised considerable revenue for transit projects.

As far as I know, congestion pricing hasn’t been introduced in any U.S. cities (New York is arguing about it, at least), so this is Seattle’s chance to be a pioneer on the driving-reduction front. And why not?

Boiled down, the benefits of such a system:

1) It would get people out of their cars (nothing like the sting of a $10 fee to make the short walk to the bus stop seem more palatable), thereby reducing pollution, aggravation, and–oh yeah–congestion.

2) It would raise money, which could be used to get even more people out of their cars. The fees would quickly recover the cost of implementing the system and then could be used to pay for stuff like: more and better transit service, bike paths, and even road repairs.

3) It would require people who choose not to get out of their cars to pay more of the real cost of their destructive habit. (Yeah, I said it.)

We could start by charging folks for driving downtown (given that it’s really the only place in the city that almost everyone can reach easily without a car) and expand the “charging zone” (perhaps even create one on the Eastside) as we raise enough revenue to expand transit options.

What say you? I’m pretty sure Santa’s down.