Policy Memo Analysis - Assignment Example

Memorandum Mr. Sheldon Silver, Democratic Speaker, New York Assembly [redacted] Tuesday, March 24, 2009 Re: PlaNYC: Pilot Congestion Pricing I am writing to provide summary and analysis of the PlaNYC Congestion Pricing policy set for State legislature approval in the coming months. I will provide recommendations on how to vote on the policy; and propose ways to address critics of your position. The recommendations in this memo draw on a thorough survey of expert opinion, news and media analysis, and public opinion analysis. In 2006, Mayor Bloomberg announced PlaNYC 2030 a comprehensive long-term plan that outlines the development of New York City through the year 2030. The plan focuses on five areas: land, water, transportation, energy, air and climate change. According to the Mayor, this plan is necessary to “address the physical barriers to maintaining and improving quality of life” in NYC (The Plan: Background, http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml). The Mayor maintains that there are several considerations that prompted the need for a sustainable plan for the future. First, New York City is a growing rapidly, with many new residents immigrating to the city each year. Second, by 2030 “nearly all of [the city’s] major infrastructure networks will be more than a century old – and under new pressures” (The Plan: Background, http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/plan.shtml). Third, both sea levels and temperatures are rising and New York City is already experiencing the effects of global warming. Therefore, in order to conserve the City’s resources and contribute to the fight against climate change, a plan for a sustainable future is necessary. Summary of Public Transportation in NYC The transportation network in New York City has been neglected over the past 50 years. PlaNYC, and this policy in particular, seek to reinvest into the regional transportation system, improve travel times and raise funds in order to meet the city’s needs for the future (PlaNYC: Transportation, http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/ plan/transportation.shtml). The current plan for the transportation system includes “strategies to improve [the] transit network and reduce growing gridlock....through better road management and congestion pricing” (PlaNYC: Transportation, http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/transportation.shtml). Despite significant improvement in the subway system the majority of New Yorkers continue to drive into Manhattan. Nearly “2 million workers from around the region, hundreds of thousands of tourists, and several hundred thousand residents” compete for the road with buses, trucks, pedestrians, cyclists and taxis” (Transportation Initiatives, http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/transportation_congestion-pricing.shtml). This has resulted in severe congestion and pollution that puts those living close to the roads at risk. The traffic jams that result from the congestion cost the city more than 13 billon dollars every year (Transportation Initiatives, http://www.nyc.gov/html /planyc2030/html/plan /transportation_ congestion-pricing.shtml). New York City’s population is growing and the congestion problem is projected to worsen in the coming years. Recommendation and Analysis I strongly recommend that you vote in favour of this policy for the following reasons: Congestion pricing has a proven track-record. New York City’s population is growing and the congestion problem is projected to worsen. PlaNYC calls for a strategy of congestion pricing to combat this problem. According to the Plan’s proponents, this tactic has been employed in other parts of the world and has been effective against gridlock. It has also assisted large cities, such as New York in raising capital for future transportation improvements. The policy is affordable and realistic. Since the Plan was first proposed it has undergone some modifications. Currently, the congestion pricing system would charge drivers $8 for entering or leaving Manhattan below 60th Street during the business day (weekdays 6am to 6pm). Truck drivers would pay $21 and cars that drive only within the zone would pay half price. Taxis, cars for –hire would pay a $1 surcharge. The fee would be processed through the E-Z Pass system and cars without E-Z passes would be checked automatically by cameras mounted on traffic polls. In 2007, the federal government announced that it would pay $354 million to New York City to assist in installing tolls for drivers entering the busiest parts of Manhattan (Feds Agree to Fund NYC Congestion Price Plan, http://wcbstv.com/topstories/ transportation. congestion.pricing. 2.246520.html ). The initial cost of implementing congestion pricing would come out of the city’s general budget and is estimated at $120 million. However, these funds are to be repaid from the first expenditure from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) (City Council mostly supportive of traffic pricing, http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_ 256/citycouncil.html). The funds from the tolls are designated for the MTA to “fund billions of dollars of transportation improvements, including immediate enhancements to some of New Yorks least transit accessible communities”(Transportation Congestion Pricing, http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc 2030/html /plan/transportation _congestion-pricing.shtm). Due to the fact that the burden of cost is on the drivers and not the city the plan is an affordable and realistic option. Although commuters would bear the brunt of the cost of the congestion plan their “costs would be less than the cost of commuting by Express Bus” and they would experience a faster commute. People with jobs that require them to commute, such as a plumbers would be able to work more on a daily basis (due to less congestion) and offset the cost of the congestion fee by increasing his/her income. Overall, the cost of doing business in New York would be lower and benefit all New Yorkers. Congestion pricing is certainly affordable and would provide a stream of funding for much-needed transit improvements. According to the Bloomberg Administration’s projections, the congestion pricing plan would realize over “$400 million in net revenues in the first year” (PlaNYC: A Bold Transportation Initiative for New York City http://zetlindechiarallp.com /enews/2007-vol12-num2-03.php). The policy is eco-friendly. Protecting the environment has become a global concern and with a growing population, congestion will continue to be a problem in the city. This policy would encourage commuters to take sustainable and environmentally friendly modes of transportation while creating revenue to support improvements in infrastructure and transportation that protect the environment and improve the quality of life of all New Yorkers. More efficient and improved public transportation. Congestion pricing has been used successfully by other cities to reduce traffic both within congestion zones and outside it. It has also “resulted in speedier bus services, decreasing delivery times, improving air quality, and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, with no material impact on the economy...” (Pilot Congestion Pricing, http://www.nyc.gov/html/ planyc2030/html/plan/transportation_congestion-pricing.shtml). In the interim, PlaNYC calls for the implementation of short-term improvements to transportation including “bus rapid transit, improved express bus service, dedicated bus lanes on bridges, and new ferry service, especially to areas of the city that lack convenient mass transit access to Manhattan...” (Pilot Congestion Pricing, http://www.nyc.gov/html/ planyc2030 /html/plan/transportation_congestion-pricing.shtml). These are all important improvements that will make public transportation more sustainable and more enjoyable for New Yorkers. Response to Critics In order to take effect, this policy will have to be legislated by the State. If approved, the State would authorise the city to impose a fee and give the city the right to fine violators of the policy (Impact of Congestion Pricing, http://www.nyc.gov/html/ planyc2030 /html/plan/ transportation _congestion-pricing.shtml). While the majority of New Yorkers that live in Manhattan are likely to support the plan on its merits of being eco-friendly and sustainable, there will likely be opposition at the State Assembly level. The policy is currently supported by the Mayor, NY City Council, NY Governor David Paterson and labor, community and environmental groups. However, as Speaker of the State Assembly, your support for the policy is crucial to its survival. You will likely face opposition by the boroughs since the policy does not address congestion problems in those areas. Further, it is the New Yorkers from those areas that travel into the city that will have to carry the financial burden of the plan. There is also likely to be debate over how the funds from the tolls should be spent. The boroughs will want to ensure that their areas receive equal support for improving transportation. Politicians with jurisdictions of economically disadvantaged populations will question the added expenses that their constituents will face. However, there are solutions. Remind the opponents that the congestion policy is in a pilot stage and after 3 years will be revaluated to determine its success. Further, the benefits of less congestion and pollution will benefit both New Yorkers living within the zone and outside of it. Also, for low-income earners, a subsidy could be implemented to alleviate their costs. In addition, drivers would not be charged after having entered the zone and would be able to make additional trips in and out of the zone at no additional cost. For E-ZPass users, the value (up to $8) of all tolls paid on MTA or Port Authority bridges and tunnels would have been deducted from the fee. Overall, this is an eco-friendly and sustainable way to raise the necessary funds for further improvements to the transportation system without taxing the city’s residents. The most effective way to deflect criticism on this policy is to emphasize the benefits to the environment and remind New Yorkers that the plan pays for itself! Considering the information put forth in this memo, it would be difficult to vote against such a forward-thinking policy. If there are questions or concerns with any of the points addressed in this memo, I would be happy to speak with you before the vote tomorrow. Thank you for your attention. Read More