Congestion pricing in NYTimes
I agree that poor people won't get screwed for one simple reason - how many poor people that live in Manhattan can afford a car? I'm upper middle class, I live in Manhattan and I can't afford a car. NYC certainly needs to address middle- and lower-class living issues, but knee-jerk reactions like that ignore simple facts and don't help.
And, discussion about whether or not this will work in NYC is a waste of time. It works in a very similar city - London. Stop talking and and start setting it up, NYC.
Come on, what a joke. I wish it worked, but it obviously won't. It works in third world countries like England, but it's a joke in NY. People are too rich in this city. It's just another annoying but minor EZ Pass expense that people will never notice. That douchebag that drove from the East Village to the Chelsea Piers and killed a bike rider, do you thing that moron is going to be in the least deterred from driving across town in rush hour? At worse, he'll make a detour. At worst, he'll drive on the bike path. What's $8.00 or $28.00 to a guy like that? Do you think he will ever take public transportation to save a buck? Do you think he will turn down a chance to drink or party because of congestion pricing? The city and suburbs are full of guys like that.
To say nothing of the closing of midtown streets for the Nascar promotion last week...
"Some of the richest businesspeople in this city apparently think congestion pricing is a good enough idea that they want to bankroll studies and lobbying to promote it.
Speaking for some of the nonrich, I'm also in favor of it -- along with just about anything, anywhere, by anyone that begins to break the stranglehold that the private automobile has over our transportation system, our land use, and our imagination. Like any other seemingly implacable edifice, you have to keep chipping away from every angle til the thing topples.
I don't get your opaque joke about England being a third-world country--its economy has been one of the fastest growing in Europe--and has [correction] pretty much tracked US GDP since 2002 (it exceeded it in 2000-01).
Nor does congestion pricing directly address negligent homicide committed by drivers--that's a subject for law enforcement and public education. The best congestion pricing do in that regard is simply get more cars off the streets, thus reducing the numbers of morons behind the wheel at any given time. Your arguments by analogy fall flat. (BTW, Nascar has announced that it won't be coming to Staten Island after all, due to local opposition. But it would be interesting to know if a permit was obtained for their Midtown trek--since there were 10 drivers, and they were clearly in a parade or procession.)
It seems that every place that has successfully implemented congestion pricing began with the premise that ""it will never work here."" Still, I don't understand why cyclists who seem to oppose the omnipresence of the automobile work so hard at discrediting viable alternatives.
So here's one instance where I am in complete agreement with the NYC business establishment (mark the day!): the traffic situation is unsustainable, and the time to act is now.
"
Have you ever been to England? The UK is the fourth largest economy in the world and a member of the G8--hardly a Third World country, especially when you consider that it is easy to find examples of abject poverty throughout New York City and the number of people in the US that have no health insurance coverage. At least in Britain, the poorest of the poor is entitled to medical treatment at no cost to the patient.
Congestion charging has had some effect in reducing the amount of traffic in central London, but it will eventually creep up to pre-charging levels. Remember that most of the daytime traffic was caused by single occupancy cars of people commuting to work from outside London, when a viable public transport alternative existed. Moreover, the people that live in the congestion zone get a substantial discount or waiver, so I'm not sure I follow the point that others have made as to why the poor get screwed. In London, it was the rich in their SUVs that were hit most by the charge, driving in from stockbroker belts, such as Surrey or Amersham, and rightly so.
London has 7.3 million inhabitants, New York about 8 million and the volume of traffic in both cities is broadly similar. I think congestion charging in New York might work for a period, like five or six years, but the volume of traffic would eventually creep back up to pre-charging levels, which would simply be a function of the increase in the number of cars on America's roads generally, over that time frame.
One downside to congestion charging is that drivers may still choose to drive as far as the boundary of the charging zone and then park their cars and get the Subway, train or bus the rest of the way. The result would be exporting congestion from downtown Manhattan, midtown Manhattan to various parts of Queens, Brooklyn, Riverdale, or other parts of the Bronx. It congestion charging was extended to the whole city, congestion would be exported to New Jersey, Westchester or Long Island, which would probably land New York City in court.
Anthony, there is a flaw in your theory of export. 50,000 cars impacted into a circle with a 3 mile diameter make for a helluva lot greater congestion than that same number of cars spread out around the circumferance of a 40 mile circle.
Chairman Peter Kalikow owns 27 Ferarri's and 4 Lamborghini's,now I'm no hater against someone thats rich but I dont see a guy like this to have the best of intentions for everyone (public).Not to mention his profession isnt transportation planning but real estate and the guy before him was a banker.The reason why I mention all this is the subway is operating near its max and it needs to expand,this expantion is going to be very very expensive but it is already in the works(hence the bonds the have been gobbled very quickly).Look at the money that was used for the airtrain you know the train that takes you to the airport great idea but it will probably take a few years before it becomes popular enough.But I think public transportaion really sucks so I cant blame a guy for wanting to drive his/her car to get around.Mainly governments in general are reactive instead of proactive and this is a problem especially in a fast paced but older city like NYC.I'm sorry if this is off the subject.Rich
"The Business Community is even getting into the act. Commerce is at risk!
http://www.nycp.org/publications/Growth%20or%20Gridlock.pdf"
"The Partnership for New York City is the organization that authored and spearheaded this campaign. I believe it caused a bit of friction with Michael Bloomberg, Dan Doctoroff, et al, since the report first came out right before Bloomberg's re-election.
Anyway, that aside, I believe there is a lot of merit behind this study. What is going to happen when NYC reaches population projections of over 9 million in the next 15-20 years?! Our infrastructure will not be able to handle the transportation demand as it currently exists, which include the road system.
This is the first step toward the right direction along with other mass transit solutions.
The congestion pricing affects heavy business areas and to my knowledge I don't know too many ""poor"" (as some have suggested) people buying groceries at Whole Foods at Union Square or at the Time Warner building.
This viable solution has worked in places such as London and Singapore without disenfranchising the less fortunate.
"
"Once again, poor people get screwed.
If you can afford it, you get to clog the streets for your own personal convenience. If, however, the price comes at the expense of groceries, clothes, or rent, you're ""penalized"" for being poor.
Isn't there a more equitable way to deal with this, e.g. cars with license plates that end in even numbers on some days; cars with plates that end in odd numbers on other days? And cars with vanity plates—never!
Better yet: No private cars, no rental cars, no chauffered cars in midtown or lower Manhattan. (I have an image of l-o-n-g skate boards with the chauffer up front providing the leg power and Mr. Attaché-carrying Executive standing at the back, reading his WSJ.
Let us build moving sidewalk e.g. are at airports. Free open jitneys that run up and down the avenues: hop on and hop off.
New building code: require underground truck stalls: no on street truck parking for deliveries in midtown or lower Manhattan. That, or deliveries in those places only between 8PM and 5AM. Yeah, OK, so businesses have to have someone working those hours to receive the deliveries. We need more jobs.
Lastly, and I'm serious about this: create a citizenry of bounty hunters to issue parking tickets with them to receive a percent of the monies collected. End traffic tie-ups and poverty at the same time. I won't go into it here, but I have a way to ensure there won't be any phony tickets written. Hint: Look at those TV cameras our soliders wear on their helmets, telecasting the field of action in real time back to HQ where the generals monitor it.
"
Poor people don't get screwed. Like many others, including myself, they continue to ride mass public transportation. With reduced traffic congestion, all folks in transit will get to their destination faster. Your time, sitting in traffic, has a cost associated with it, too. For hourly-paid wage (poor) folks who are running late to work, surely such will resonate with them.
Also, another great there is less pollution created. Many highly trafficked areas run through poorer neighborhoods, e.g. areas of less desirable real estate investment. An improvement in air quality definitely equates to an improvement in health.
When folks pay the true(r) cost of travel, assuming the powers-that-be get the congestion pricing model correct, those additional funds are used to further subsidize mass transit and medical care which benfit poor folk and children, i.e. asthma care, among others.
Congestion pricing, if implemented correctly, is a wonderful win-win idea. One of the real challenges is getting folks to really understand this issue, including politicians and correctly put into practice. Like social security reform, this type of issue seems to lose folks attention span quickly. I reckon it's a dry subject for many.
Better yet, a free market solution. Auction off a limited number of rights to drive in the city, and make that right a tradeable commodity.
If the rich were truly and always deserving of their wealth, I'd join you in your worship of The Great Free Market Diety.
I don't believe a professional athlete is worth more to society than a school teacher. I gather you do.
I don't believe Paris Hilton's value to society is greater than a room attendant at a Hilton hotel. I gather you do.
I don't believe a Park Ave. law partner's value to society is greater than a public interest lawyer's.
I don't believe a Fifth Ave. dermatologist's value to society is greater than an inner-city general practitioner's.
You want to reward wealth; I want to reward people.
...what metric *other* than market value do we have to objectively measure the absolute worth of GP's, public interest lawyers, Paris Hilton, etc?
I take from what you write, you believe because life is not a meritocracy, we should not make an effort seek to make it more fair, that we should accept reality as it is rather than seek to improve it, that we should just cave in to squalor and capitulate to venality.
…Well, no you don’t: your and others’ support for any plan to reduce congestion is predicated on your not accepting reality.
But why should the State (city) impose any standard that favors one group over another when it is not necessary to do so to reduce traffic during certain hours of the day in Central Business Districts?
In the early 1970s, at least in California, when there was an acute gas shortage, cars could fill up only certain days of the week depending on their license plates. In the case of granting entry to CBDs, it would be possible, using the technology of E-Z Pass, to rotate admissibility depending on license plates or registration numbers.
Of course, this, and all other plans to reduce traffic in the CBD’s will falter on the failure of the police to enforce the law. On the other hand, the E-Z Pass technology relies on cameras and cameras are more conscientious than police in ticketing.
They tried exactly what you propose in Mexico City. Worked nicely initially until people started to buy a second car ....
Not that i buy the tax-the-poor argument that much, but what also should help quite a bit which cannot be labelled tax is the reduction of street and parking space allocated to individual motorized traffic and more dedicated space to public transport, bicycles and pedestrians plus signals with preferred treatment of public transit. (E.g., a 34th street and second avenue with light rail, bike path and completely closed for cars plus cutting down on car lanes on other avenues by half...). Obviously that also needs strict enforcement, e.g., by ticketing the usual intersection-blockers and cutting drastically down on the free (and often illegally used) public servant parking permits ...
"And the odd/even days was a federal mandate that applied to all states. If your license plate ended with an odd number, you could only fill up on an odd numbered calendar date.
While most 99% (probably 99.99% during the gas shortage) of those who drive, don't burn through a tank of gas in a day, forgoing an extra day to fill up again is not much of a bother. Much less so considering the time it took to fill up while waiting in line. The same cannot be said for permitting daily access into the city.
As for auctions, that would be woefully inefficient, in my opinion. For instance, what auction did I win? The right to travel about for one day or for the whole year?
In the case of one day, it would be a major pain in the you know what to have to participate in an auction on a daily basis. I'm sorry boss, I can't come into work today because I did not win today's auction. That's what I get for spending more time in front of the computer (before work) instead of showering, eating, etc.
If it's a year, then what would end up happening is people would snatch up the winning auctions, and use these permits/vouchers less frequently than than other would out of fear of scarcity. Squatters. For instance, a somewhat similar example would be like purchasinng 3 airline tickets for yourself because you do not want anyone sitting next you while on the plane. In economic terms, this inefficiency is known as a ""deadweight loss"", i.e. winning the auction when it cost more than it benefits them.
Besides, the infrastructure is already in place with all of the tunnel and bridge toll crossings and the EZ Pass system. Also, the auction implementation would not go over well with the toll booth collector's union."
">>I take from what you write, you believe because life is not a meritocracy, we should not make an effort seek to make it more fair<<
No, that's not what I was saying at all. I was simply pointing out that there are no objective criteria for determining value (or ""fairness"" for that matter), and that ergo it would be ""unfair"" to disparage certain professions or ideologies or personalities simply because of one's personal preferences."
Let us keep in mind the subject: how to reduce motor vehicle traffic in core downtown areas—well, for that matter, in all crowded areas.
And my point was and is there is no need to choose between competing constituencies, whether based on ability to pay or any other standard. I'm preaching equal access and equally denied access to all.
(But, to take a half-step backward, making access to our streets based on wealth is plutocratic.)
"Richard Rosenthal wrote:
Let us build moving sidewalk e.g. are at airports.
Interesting idea. But there would be unsophisticated tourists who would treat the moving sidewalk as a ride, as if they weren't expected to walk on it. Imagine the chaos that would create!
""The other people I hate are the people that get on to the moving walkway and then just stand there. Like it's a ride? Excuse me, there's no animated pirates or bears along the way here. Do your legs work at all?""
--Jerry Seinfeld"
"Richard,
I haven't read the report enough to be able to address the class disparities (I will however!) But off the top of my head I would say that a transportation system based on the private automobile disadvantages lower and middle income people by consuming a disproportionate amount of income. (The only reason I have any savings is because I don't own a car.)
If funds from a congestion pricing scheme help to support a more expansive mass transit system that moves people more quickly and safely than private cars, then that by definition benefits working people by cost savings, quality of time, and as Peter points out, less time wasted commuting to work. The issue here is, are the benefits shared equally, or do the mass transit lines go to the rich suburbs and leave out the boroughs? That is a legitimate concern, because even among congestion pricers the thinking is ""get people out of their cars and into plush comfortable buses"" -- not necessarily bring mobility to the masses. (In Baltimore, the touted light rail system moves rich mostly whites from a northwestern suburb quickly into Camden Yards for shopping and ball games, while people trying to get to a job on a different side of town must spend about three hours on buses.)
I think congestion pricing, expanded mass transit, and a living wage would do more for the other half than would preservation of present driver privileges."
Pipe dream.
[zips lips for the day]
Look a little closer at the indentation. it was a responds to the same post you were responding to.
Wouldn't you agree, April, it's better to not put strictures on your imagination than to limit it?
I'm sure ending slavery was a pipe dream at one time.
If you limit yourself to the readily obtainable, you're not moving society very far ahead in the span of, say, 50 years.
"""Wouldn't you agree, April, it's better to not put strictures on your imagination than to limit it? ""
No, I don't agree, because we're not talking about dreams here.
Congestion pricing is a reality, even though only in other countries for now."
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6208312.stm
""The Scottish Executive wants to cut emissions, improve public transport, create more car-free zones and see more short journeys made by bike or on foot."""
"""Scottish Conservative transport spokesman David Davidson highlighted what he called ""Scotland's number one transport need"" - a new Forth crossing.""
But is a new forth crossing, a fifth crossing?????"
"The Firth of Forth is a body of water in Scotland. ""Firth of Fifth"" is the name of a song by Genesis from the 1970s, featuring an excellent guitar solo by Steve Hackett. It appeared on their album, ""Selling England by the Pound."""
"Congestion pricing alone won't work, article says. Recommends making it part of a policy to reduce traffic overall throughout the city.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/landuse/20061207/12/2052"
"The second problem is the way congestion pricing is being sold as the silver bullet to solve all congestion problems.
Says who? Traffic congestion is still a big problem in the U.K., but that's not to discount the effectiveness and success of congestion pricing currently used in London. If you expand the initial scope too wide, in this case (NY) City wide, chances are it will never happen. Scaling out can always occur down the road (excuse the pun).
""This ignores, for example, the many other methods used in London to reduce traffic, including... strict parking and truck loading rules and better surface transit""
What point is there to catch a taxi or a bus if it sits in traffic? Reducing congestion increases the incentive to do so. Using such funds to pay for surface transit will follow.
Besides, NYC already has these considerations in place. For example, NYC collects as much, if not more revenue from parking and idle engine running violations than it does directly from city taxes. The city already has extensive bus service and taxis to which it controls their supply.
The short of it is, other than the need for long-term planning for traffic reduction, I don't quite understand what it is Gotham Gazette is suggesting that is newsworthy or helpful.
"
This guy Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College, City University of NY
He's probably writing that peice sitting in New Jersey.
"Toll roads and bridges are better maintained; while the toll-free roads and crossings have improved a bit, NYC definitely is not the exception.
CNN article, ""New York faces all-day rush hour by 2030""
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/nyc.population.ap/index.html"
"Have Mayor Bloomberg eliminate free parking for city employees.
According to yesterday's NY Times article 35 percent of government workers drive to work. Compare that with 14% of finance workers (sorry, Richard).
Other article tid bits...
Census data show that more city residents than suburbanites drive to work in Manhattan every day. After City residents, it's Long Islanders - not NJers (thank you very much).
80% of weekday Manhattan traffic is for destinations within Manhattan and the remainder are for motorists just passing through.
--
In my opinion given Manhattan's geography, accessible means and the volume of traffic present, it would be very feasible and easy to implement (excluding political and social considerations)."
"The same article goes on to cite one driver who gave up mass transportation to enjoy the ""personal space"" of a private vehicle. A driver probably not alone with this sentiment. And probably not inconceivable that a good number of drivers with need for personal space could find their own personal, dedicated space in the saddle of bicycle. And maybe a number of those over time, by riding a bike, might ultimately not need as much personal space. And live longer to enjoy it."
"Peter wrote, above, ""According to yesterday's NY Times article 35 percent of government workers drive to work. Compare that with 14% of finance workers (sorry, Richard).""
I gather Peter noted me because of my expressed hope that there be some solution to traffic other than congestion pricing since that would be just another way to screw the lesser well off and favor the better off. Let me make it clear: I want private cars and private limos out of the Central Business District(s). Completely.
The study attributed the fact so many goverment employees drive into Manhattan to the fact they are given free on-street parking privileges. Take it away from them! All of them! Judges. Prosecutors. Cops. Department heads. They make enough to pay for parking, and if that strains them, well, welcome to the MTA."
"If the free parking limited people to parking in legal spots, I might be OK with it. But the city's Parking permits seem to be used as ""Park Anywhere Free without Regard to Regulations Placards.""
But the way things are is that workers park anywhere/anytime. Because of this, traffic flow is hindered. Example: Chambers Street has NO PARKING or STOPPING 4-7 pm (might be 4-6 pm), but there are always city workers cars parked, which REALLY slows down and hampers traffic especially when wider busses or trucks come down the road.
Also, if cars were not parked on Chambers Street during rush hour times, it would be safer for cyclists to use this frequented route to the Brooklyn Bridge. As of now it is unnecessarily narrow and dangerous competing so closely with the cars.
Also there are ""no parking here to corner"" signs where cars with city permits are regularly parked in that area -- this slows traffic, as often the sign are place for safety and turning reasons. Not to mention the parking on sidewalks and next to fire hydrants.
Let make the 'free' parking free still, but make the drivers follow the rules too. Ticket them, and make them pay the tickets, if the vehicle is illegally parked.
"
