The Politicker

Fidler's Traffic Plan to City Council Tomorrow

Getty Images

After months of working on his traffic relief plan—an alternative to Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing—Lew Fidler will introduce it to the City Council tomorrow.

Fidler is choosing tomorrow to introduce the plan because on Thursday, the commission looking at a number of traffic congestion relief plans is going to recommend one to the City Council. The Council, in turn, will vote on whether to support that plan. If they do choose one, legislators in Albany will then take up the issue.

The City Council would ultimately have to approve any traffic relief plan before the state legislature would even consider it. And approval from both are needed in order to tap into millions of dollars in federal funding, which is available for traffic plans that meet the same targets as Bloomberg's.

Fidler's political goal here is to demonstrate the support for his plan. When I spoke to him this morning he said, “Here they are debating floor plans that has maybe three committed votes." Of the 11 resolutions his plan includes Fidler says they have an average of 24 co-sponsors, although support for individual resolutions varies.

Fidler says his support is diverse. “I want to be very clear," he told me. "I have co-sponsors for elements of this plan that are ardently in favor of congestion pricing, ardently against it, and people who haven’t yet committed. But even if they’re in favor of congestion pricing, and they put their name next to one of my resolution points, they think that point is a good idea, and some of them [the resolutions] survive with or without congestion pricing.”

Fidler said it’s not likely his proposal will go to a vote before congestion pricing, since in addition to the mayor, the City Council Speaker supports congestion pricing. “What’s wrong is my plan isn’t part of the debate," Fidler says.

On Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, Fidler said, “I think where it is today is losing.”

Fidler thinks he knows why it is losing, and to illustrate his point he relayed a story about a talk given by Marc Shaw, the head of the traffic commission. Fidler told me, “Marc Shaw came to the Democratic caucus of the City Council a week and a half ago and presented the options. And said—and this is a quote and he will not deny it because he said it in front of seventy people—that the [plans] being considered by the commission all fall disproportionately on the taxpayers of Brooklyn and Queens. I think where he was wrong is he left out the Bronx and Staten Island.” (I've put in a call to Shaw and am waiting to hear back).

Fidler’s plan includes calls for: constructing the Cross Harbor Tunnel, encourage the purchase of hydrogen fuel cell cars, levying a payroll tax of one third of one percent on the city, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, increasing metered parking and taxi stands in midtown, restricting where trucks could load and unload goods, moving city agencies to the outer boroughs and connecting the train on Staten Island to rest of the subway system [added].

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

Anonymous (not verified) says:

Fidler and his plan are a joke. Even if his plan went forward, there is nothing in it that will do anything to significantly reduce motor vehicle traffic in NYC for 20 years. If Council votes to approve this garbage tomorrow, what next? Shovels in the ground for the Staten Island Tunnel? Nope. Can we please get some responsible, adult leadership in Council to step up and start talking about how to make pricing work?

Anonymous (not verified) says:

Fidlers plan is the only pragmatic approach that has been given a voice thus far. Bloomberg's recent comments about the need to institute congestion pricing in order for mass transportation improvements to be made is evidence that this is more about money than it is about pollution, air quality and via a reduction in cars. Bloomberg knows that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Councils statistics show that there has been a steady reduction in cars in Manhattan since 2001.

Grace (not verified) says:

This plan is one of many. We all must share the burden of both the CO2 emissions and funding mass transit. Yes, tax gas guzzling cars at the point of sale and/or their toxic fuel, and incentivize the purchase and use of "green" cars. But NO mass transit plan to reduce car traffic into and within Manhattan can be accomplished without treating the source of the cars.

If there is not enough room at any price at LIRR or Metro North stations (part of the MTA), then how can you take the train. You don't; you take a car. So part of the plan must be to fund increased parking at the "railheads" and/or park and ride lots. It can be done using the increased tolls ON EVERY BRIDGE TO MANHATTAN (with reductions on stickers for city primary residents and on times of day), increased meter/munimeter rates, treating "black cars" as private cars; charges for ALL street parking in the borough, double parking enforcement including trucks, no parking on any streets or avenues with buses (should take care of some double parking problems), plus surcharges on taxis into the zone below 60th Street (how to collect those?). Or of course, (dare I say it?), we could reinstate the commuter tax and designate it for mass transit. Pick you poison!

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.