SIBRO Civic (Staten Island and Brooklyn Civic) and South Beach Civic are sponsoring an Anti-Bloomberg Congestion Pricing Plan Forum, Sunday, April 6th at 7 PM in Xaverian High School, 7100 Shore Road,Brooklyn, NY 11209.

Speakers include Democratic Congressional Candidate Steve Harrison (NY13th CD, Staten Island/Southwest Brooklyn) and Queens City Councilman Tony Avella. One very prominent elected official is also trying to make it, but doesn't want his name released in case he can't it.

Councilman Bill de Blasio and Vinnie Gentile will send representatives.

There may also be speakers on behalf of the People with Disabilities community, who would suffer under the proposed congestion pricing.

Steve Harrison opposes Bloomberg's Congestion Plan, but not congestion pricing in theory.

For more information on Steve views on congestion pricing visit steveharrisonforcongress.com

Got this from Straphangers Campaign:

Chapter 384 of the Laws of 2007 established the New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, a 17-member body directed to undertake a review and study of plans to reduce traffic congestion and other related health and safety issues within the City of New York.

As part of its statutory mandate, and to provide the opportunity for maximum public involvement, participation and comment, the Commission is conducting this series of public hearings to be held in each borough of the City of New York, on Long Island, and in Westchester County.

Persons wishing to present pertinent testimony to the Commission at any of the above public hearings should complete and return the enclosed reply form as soon as possible. It is important that the reply form be fully completed and returned so that persons may be notified in the event of emergency postponement or cancellation.

This week, a multi-issue agreement was reached in Albany. The agreement covers congestion pricing, campaign finance reform, long-overdue salary increases, and possibly some legislation.

The bad news is that nothing (or almost nothing) was actually accomplished.

The congestion pricing debate will shift from the usual three men in a room – plus one (Mayor Bloomberg) to a 17-member commission. This commission will “study” several alternatives, then report early next year, after which the legislature may or may not act.

Whenever political leaders don’t want to take the heat for an initiative, they generally create a commission; this gives them cover, allowing them to claim that they’re just following the recommendations of the experts, while they hope nobody notices who appointed the members of the commission. (Note: the difference between a “committee” and a “commission” is still a mystery, except that a “committee” is usually created to bury an issue, while a “commission” is supposed to render an “independent judgment” that just happens to coincide with what its creators wanted.)

Want this badge?

Join me and other Daily Gothamers at the Drum Major Institute Fundraising Party. It's Thursday June 21, 2007 at 7:00 PM at Cipriani's 23rd Street -- 23rd & 5th Ave. Trust me, I've been to DMI events before. They are fun, thought provoking and -- if you tell them Daily Gotham sent you -- you can get in for less (see the end). The Drum Major Institute does great work. We should all support them

Two people are being honored: Michael Bloomberg, our Mayor and Tavis Smiley, the PBS-TV host and author. Introducing Mr. Smiley, is Dr. Cornell West one of the smarter, funnier people who always seems to be leading whatever organization I'm joining. Introducing the Mayor, will be Rev. Dr. James A Forbes Jr. Rev. Forbes is retiring as pastor of Riverside Church and, to my older ears, is a preacher of the old school. He is a pleasure, inspiration and should not be missed.

What's that you say? Bloggers who heap scorn on Mr. Bloomberg joining in to honor him? Absolutely. I am, if not the first heaper of scorn, among those who disagree with many of our Mayor's policies. Mr. Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030, however, is a bold thoughtful policy change and we should honor it and the risk Mr. Bloomberg took proposing it. (Mind you, next week we should all criticize the Mayor for his deplorably meager affordable housing program.)

When you call or email for tickets -- tell them Daily Gotham sent you. DMI has promised to give our activists entre for less. For you a special deal. Click here for more information. See you there.

In the great meeting room of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Mayor Bloomberg and the chairs of many NYS Assembly Committees engaged in a snappish battle of wits in which the citizens were losers. Richard Brodsky and Denny Farrell scored imaginary talking points off the Mayor. Even if you have a horse in this race (and I do), it was difficult to declare a winner. (After the jump, a possible fatal flaw in Mr. Bloomberg's plan and a chance to lobby in Albany if you support it.)

UPDATE: Rep. Joseph Crowley, chair of the Queens Democratic Party, (whose district includes a portion of the Bronx) endorsed the Congestion Pricing Proposal. In a complete coincidence, Mayor Bloomberg promised to pay for two new Queens LIRR stations (and two Bronx Metro North Stations).

2nd UPDATE TUESDAY: Sheldon Silver is not convinced here and here .

The Mayor, of course, knew the details of the proposal and no one else did.

Friday, June 8, 2007 the pending proposal for Congestion Pricing gets an unusual test. A joint legislative committee hearing (many committees, many chairs) is set to start at 10AM at the Association of the Bar at 42 West 44th Street. If you’re interested and you can, go. It should be interesting because Assembly Member Richard Brodsky, so far an outspoken plan opponent, will have a leading role there. An interesting pro-congestion pricing coalition, The Campaign For New York’s Future is calling for people to show up by 8:15 (The doors open at 9AM). (Annie Karni's NY Sun coverage of the hearing is here .)

UPDATE:Congestion pricing supporter, Senate Majority Leader Bruno has introduced the bill says Liz Benjamin and The Albany Project's Lipris . Streetsblog has the 154 page text if you're into self-abuse. Has a deal been struck?

Gothamist picks up on the NYC Independent Budget Office's report that, thanks to mounting debt, the MTA may be forced to raise subway and bus fares to as much as $3 per ride by 2010. As the Daily News explains, the hikes will be necessary if the agency can't find the money elsewhere:

The doomsday scenario could hit if other revenue sources, including dedicated taxes, state subsidies and MTA bridge and tunnel tolls, are not increased, according to the report, which was commissioned by the Straphangers Campaign.

There is, of course, an excellent potential source of new revenue, as Straphangers pointed out:

"If we don't get financial help soon, transit riders will face whopping fare hikes," said Gene Russianoff of the rider advocacy group. He urged Gov. Spitzer to back Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal.

If opponents of congestion pricing insist on labeling the idea as nothing more than a regressive tax increase, perhaps they'll consider which is really more regressive: a fee that would impact only five percent of New Yorkers, most of whom don't even need to drive into Manhattan, or a fare hike that would hit hard in the pocketbooks of the great majority of the city's workers.

So there's a new Q-poll that shows New Yorkers split -- leaning negative -- on the idea of congestion pricing. At the Politicker, Azi has quotes from the Partnership for NYC and NYPIRG/Straphangers pointing out that poll respondents were not advised of any of the potential benefits of the proposal, so what you're seeing is a pretty raw reaction to a new issue.

Streetsblog points out that this state of play is hardly unique in the history of road pricing proposals:

While the new survey will be viewed by some as a sign that the traffic relief plan is politically impossible, it is worth noting that compared to public opinion in London and Stockholm prior to the launch of those cities' congestion pricing systems, opposition among New York City voters and criticism in the local press appears to be far less intense.

Before its implementation in Stockholm, Sweden, a survey showed that 80 percent of Stockholm residents were opposed to the idea of congestion pricing. After a seven month trial from January to July 2006, 53 percent of Stockholm residents voted to keep the city's congestion charging system in place.

As Daniel reported in his post about Friday's DMI meeting on congestion pricing, New Yorkers are, for all intents and purposes, already paying a congestion tax: the cost of congestion itself. He also reported on the consensus opinion that any congestion pricing plan would only feasible -- and fair -- if it were coupled with a serious investment in expanding access to and the efficiency of public transporation:

Everyone on the panel suggested that people who drive were making a rational choice based on the options available to them and that a successful plan would have to take their needs into account.

While I share this view, it's worth noting that some data indicate that only a small portion of those who drive into Manhattan's central business districts do so because they lack access to adequate public transport.

The Gothamist linked last week to a survey by the Partnership for New York City that found that, of the five percent of New Yorkers who drive to work in the CBDs, "just 17 percent ... take their cars into Manhattan’s CBDs because of inaccessible or inconvenient mass transit options." Moreover, only 10 percent of New York's drivers, according to the poll, said that taking mass transit would make their commutes any slower than driving. The PFNYC study implied that it was a sort of inertia, more than anything else, keeping New York City's drivers from abandoning their cars -- and that only congestion pricing could change this:

If you missed it, and want to review live blogging of the DMI meeting on congestion-pricing click here The live blog isn’t a transcript, but it catches most of the highlights. The brightest spot: NYC Central Labor Council Director Ed Ott compares good sex with good outcomes of the congestion pricing debate: No one agrees on what it is but it’s what you do up front that counts. He wants mass transit improvements especially many more buses up front.

Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron’s presentation seemed clear, but curiously flat. In the question period, she pointed to my personal bugbear – the potential unfairness of the fees on lower income people. She said that, in London, some of the fee proceeds were used to provide free public transit for young, old and, perhaps in the future the poor. In that, all of the panelist agreed: we’re at the beginning of needed discussion and that the Mayor’s plaNYC 2030 is a first step. I'm convinced.

Mr. Ott and Council Member Eric Gioia made, to my mind, the most important point -- and one that I previously didn't get: we are already paying for congestion but in insane and unplanned ways.