This New York Now report on WMHT public television — as a part of Blueprint America — looks at how state spending may relate more to power than to need when it comes to the New York’s aging infrastructure.

______________________________________________________________________________________
WMHT, in Binghamton, NY, is a partner station of Blueprint America

Blueprint America goes to three very different American cities — Denver, New York and Portland, and their surrounding suburbs — to look at each as a microcosm of the challenges and possibilities the country faces as citizens, local and federal officials, and planners struggle to manage a growing America with innovative transportation and sustainable land use policies.

With roads clogged and congested, gas prices uncertain, smog and pollution creating health problems like asthma, cities that once built infrastructure to serve only automobiles and trucks are now looking to innovative new forms of transportation systems — like trolleys, light rail, pedestrian walkways and bike paths.

Whether it is talking to residents pushing sustainable development in the Bronx, smart growth in Denver, or a journalist in Portland whose beat is bicycling, Blueprint America finds a common theme: America’s love affair with the car may be a thing of the past, and that may be the road to economic recovery.

Traffic in New York City

Just a year earlier, on Earth Day, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg first proposed the congestion pricing plan as a way to both reduce traffic in Manhattan’s streets and increase funds for mass transit throughout the City’s five boroughs.

Congestion Pricing

Congestion pricing, in design, puts an added fee on driving in a designated zone within a city, most often in overcrowded and car-filled areas. It is a tax on driving – to discourage driving and, at the same time, fund alternatives to driving. As a result, the ‘tax’ can be taken two ways:

• Due to car emissions, driving both adversely affects the environment and the health of communities. Consequently, it should be taxed similar to increased taxes on tobacco and liquor – people will drive less and mass transit will have better investment.
• Driving may be harmful, but it is still not a vice like tobacco or liquor. Rather, driving is a need and a right. The cost is already high, and it is taxed enough. And, simply, the alternatives to driving are not yet an adequate substitute.

  Congestion Pricing in London

Some major cities around the world, including Singapore, London and Stockholm, have been able to remedy this divide and implement congestion pricing plans. Still, though cities in America have proposed it, nowhere in the country has congestion pricing been realized. Since its failure in New York, San Francisco is now considering a similar plan.

New York City

As a part of the PlaNYC initiative put forward by Mayor Bloomberg to make New York a greener city as it continues to develop over the next few decades, the initial congestion pricing plan announced in April 2007 proposed an $8 fee to passenger vehicles entering Manhattan below 86th Street between 6 am and 6 pm on weekdays, and $4 for trips within that zone. By implementing congestion pricing, $354 million in grants through the federal Urban Partnership Agreement would have been allocated to the City for mass transit improvements.

Also referred to as the Central Business District, the part of Manhattan below 86th Street on a given day has some 2 million workers from around the region, hundreds of thousands of tourists, and several hundred thousand residents. With these people come cars. And, if it had been implemented, traffic within the congestion pricing zone was projected to decrease 6.3 percent and speeds were projected to increase 7.2 percent.

Still, in January of the following year, changes were made to the Mayor’s proposal – namely, reducing the congestion pricing zone to below 60th Street instead of 86th.

The opposition to the plan came mainly from the outer boroughs and the surrounding suburbs – where the drivers lived. But, that opposition was minimal. According to a March 2008 Quinnipiac poll, the overall public support for congestion pricing in the City, if the proceeds were used to improve mass transit, was 60 percent to 30 percent statewide. New York City voters supported the plan, if the money was used for mass transit, 67 percent to 27 percent, while suburban voters supported it 51 percent to 43 percent.
Despite the city and statewide public support, the New York City Council, which votes unanimously on most issues, voted only 30 to 20 in support of the plan on March 31, 2008.

The deadline to apply for the federal Urban Partnership Agreement funds – $354 million for mass transit – was on April 7th. In the end, no vote was made by the New York State legislature. Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to implement congestion pricing failed as time ran out. The winners: Politicians from Queens, Brooklyn and New York’s suburbs, who maintained that congestion pricing was a fee on commuters to the benefit of well-to-do Manhattanites.

Specifically, New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, representing the Lower East Side of Manhattan, opposed the plan arguing motorists would avoid congestion pricing fees by parking in neighborhoods just outside the zone. As a result, neighborhoods would become “parking lots.” Also, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky of Westchester County issued a report on the proposal, calling it a “regressive tax” on the poor and middle class of the region.

Still, though New York City lost federal funds for its transportation system as a result of the plan’s defeat, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood recently made it clear that the funds are still available if the city is ever able to implement congestion pricing in the near future.

The Singapore Example

Singapore was the first country in the world to implement Electronic Road Pricing (called congestion pricing in the U.S.).

The following is a Worldfocus-Blueprint America report on Singapore’s successes in alleviating congestion, while, at the same time, the automatic fees take a toll on Singapore’s commuters.

Worldfocus producers Mary Lockhart and Ara Ayer, and correspondent Daljit Dhaliwal report; this segment was part of a series on infrastructure produced by Worldfocus.

Last April, chagrined transportation professionals from New York were aghast to find their L.A. compatriots wearing “I Love NY” buttons.  The Angelinos were enamored of the Big Apple because we had just forked over our $354 million in federal funds for congestion pricing after the New York State Assembly failed to even hold a vote on the matter.  The City of Angels (as well as Chicago, St. Louis and others) is hoping for a repeat as New York struggles in planning for stimulus money.

The infrastructure portion of the stimulus bill (don’t call it that to the administration; they are very sensitive and it must be called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) is aimed at “shovel-ready” projects, meaning that funds must be allocated almost immediately with at least half the money obligated within 180 days of the bill’s February 17th enactment. Unobligated funds would be redistributed presumably to states that met or exceeded the 50% threshold. The rest of the money must be obligated within one year. But, there’s one pot of money that has a much longer window — in fact, longer than 10 years.  In a “squeaker,” the high-speed rail initiative went from zero to $2 Billion to $8 Billion in the final version.  And there’s more where that came from.  All expectations are on the new federal transportation bill (the old one expires in September 2009) to include billions more.

A real rail network, as what is seen today in Europe and parts of Asia, is what this country’s transportation system truly lacks. Rail has the potential to seriously improve the environment by reducing the large carbon footprint produced by short-haul air or motor vehicle travel. A high-speed rail line for trips of less than 500 miles can easily compete and should beat air travel. So, if we are looking for opportunities to make transport more sustainable and connect and revitalize major cities, why not start at home?

We are pleased that Governor Paterson and the New York State Department of Transportation recently released their New York State Rail Plan 2009 – Strategies for a New Age, the state’s first comprehensive rail plan in 22 years. The Plan creates a 2020 vision for a statewide high-speed (we think medium-speed is more like it with top speeds of 110 mph vs. Asian and European high speeds of 200+ mph) rail network. Such an aggressive target year is laudable for the changes that the Plan proposes: reliable and frequent service between New York City and Albany; increased and improved service between Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, and Rochester (the Empire Line); a 6½ hour trip between Albany and Montreal (the Adirondack Line); a modernization and improvement in the state’s freight rail system; and a host of other improvements.

However, we want the state to begin thinking on an even grander scale. While medium-speed rail may be achievable by 2020, high-speed is certainly within reach by 2030.  Here’s New York State’s chance to step up to the plate and take what’s rightfully ours. By the way, we also call for upgrades of the Northeast Corridor – but we’re less worried about that because of strong advocacy by our Veep and a cadre of U.S. senators and congress people. We want to speed up service on the Empire and Adirondack Lines, beyond the 110mph laid out in the Plan, to run competitively with systems in China, Japan, and soon California so let’s aim for 250mph or NY to Buffalo in less than 3 hours and to Albany in an hour.  Montreal and Toronto could be just 3 and 5 hours away, respectively, even with customs checks on the train!

Upstate New York cities are dying – they started experiencing their own recession decades before the rest of the country fell into the recession we live with today. Frankly, while the country is catching a cold now or even the flu, we’re worried upstate will catch pneumonia. Bringing them hours closer to New York City — the world’s capital — will give them an enormous boost. Linking them with Toronto and Montreal will create a cosmopolitan opportunity to Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Albany. And by revitalizing our cities, New York State can really begin promoting compact, urban development – another huge plus for the environment.

Another major issue affecting our state’s economic well-being is the transport of freight. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey faces fierce competition with the Port of Baltimore. By strengthening our freight rail network, we may be able to capture some of the freight which is currently directed to Baltimore. Also, by providing a reliable freight rail link into Canada, we can make New York Harbor into a faster, more economical gateway for trans-shipment to the Canadian and upper Mid-West markets that are currently served by slow ships on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes. Heck, throw in Congressman Jerry Nadler’s freight tunnel, link it with an upstate freight line and we will be on our way toward restoring New York Harbor as the Port of Entry to the U.S. east of The Mississippi and reestablishing New York City as the world’s port.

But we can’t rely solely on federal dollars to see our vision through. We must come up with a long term funding plan to assist a new rail system.  We look to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) model created by Governor Nelson Rockefeller over 40 years ago.  Today, the MTA Bridges and Tunnels (née Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority (TBTA)) hands over its excess revenue to its parent, the MTA. This money, in turn, helps fund New York City Transit, MTA Bus, and the commuter rail lines. We propose a similar model to help subsidize rail initiatives and operations throughout the state. In this case, we would recommend using the tolls on the New York State Thruway and introducing tolls on roads which parallel the rail system.  Toll rates would be set to include a subsidy for the rail.  This would also have the effect of shifting some freight and passenger traffic from the Thruway to the railways.  That means faster travel for motorists and less need to widen the Thruway as the upstate economy recovers.

High-speed rail for New York State already has its champions. Senator Chuck Schumer (D) called the plan a “great first step” towards a European-style system. Representative Louise Slaughter (D) has suggested aiming for electric trains that run at 150mph or faster which would develop the economy of Upstate New York. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) have also voiced support. We need to rally our champions to think even one step further. And perhaps we should also go beyond state lines to consider connecting our fast service with other cities and another country, Canada, to garner even more support.

We are at an exciting, but critical point in United States rail history. Rail is finally getting the attention it deserves and the dollars are beginning to flow in. But if we don’t think like visionaries now, we risk giving up our potential, and ending up with a good (yes, it will be good!) rail system that results in impressive – but not extraordinary – change.

Extended interviews regarding the leak in the Delaware aqueduct.

Paul Rush, Deputy Commissioner of NYC Department of Environmental Protection in the Bureau of Water Supply (Grahamsville, NY).

Jay Simpson, a staff attorney with the environmental advocacy group Riverkeeper (White Plains, NY).

Blueprint America correspondent Rick Karr in extended interviews with the Deputy Commissioner of NYC Department of Environmental Protection in the Bureau of Water Supply and a staff attorney with the environmental advocacy group Riverkeeper regarding the leak in the Delaware aqueduct. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2008/11/ba_leak_thumb.jpg ]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/by-geography/northeast/the-leak-audio-extended-interviews/197/feed/ 0 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/blogs/the-dig-hard-times/117/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/blogs/the-dig-hard-times/117/#comments Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:02:40 +0000 tom mcnamara http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/?p=117 Already, the financial crisis has affected infrastructure projects throughout America.

On Sept. 19, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, “Troubles in the national credit market have forced Missouri to scrap a plan to use private funds to fix its 802 worst bridges.” Proposed in 2006, the Missouri Safe and Sound Bridge program “was offered as a new model for states wanting to repair or replace hundreds of decaying bridges without issuing more bonds.” By forming this Public-Private Partnership (PPP), the state would have hired a single contractor to work on and pay for the project through private financing. In turn, the state would have reimbursed the contractor for the work and 25 years of upkeep. When the project was first proposed, private financing had lower interest rates than public. But, as the credit markets have raised interest rates, private financing is too expensive. The state is now forced to bond money to itself in order to get the project underway.

According to the Miami Herald on Sept. 27, another PPP in Florida, the Port of Miami Tunnel project, may also stall. Similar to the Missouri Safe and Sound Bridge program, the current economic downturn has caused the credit and bond markets to continue to make privately funded ventures more costly than public. Under the tentative plan, the tunnel is to be built and operated for 35 years by Sydney-based Babcock & Brown Limited and Paris-based Bouygues Travaux Publics SA. It is also supposed to be the largest infrastructure project ever built and overseen by a single private entity. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., until the investment bank liquidated in mid-Sept., was to have been the lead underwriter for the project. But, even in uncertain economic times, the private financiers still want to go ahead with the project. The state of Florida, however, hopes to wait until December to make a final decision.

In New York on Sept. 26, The New York Times reported, state officials announced a $16 billion plan to replace, not rebuild, the Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River. The new bridge, if built, would have room for commuter trains and high-speed bus lanes. The state will both seek federal financing and consider private partnerships to fund the project.

But, even as PPPs remain as an alternative option to replace and repair America’s aging infrastructure, interest rates in the credit and bond markets are still too high for some projects to be privately financed or considered by state governments.