Congestion Pricing in New York City

[QuasiMondo]

NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, with the backing of Governor Eliott Spitzer is now going full steam ahead with his plan to institute congestion pricing in Manhattan. Loosely based on the plans instituted in London a few years back, it would charge all drivers a fee to enter Manhattan anywhere below 86th Street. The aim of all of this is to reduce the amount of daytime traffic in the city. The hope is that by charging these fees, it would encourage commuters to use alternate means to enter the city. I hate fees. And tolls. And anything resembling fees and tolls, so naturally I had problems with this proposal in two main areas.

1. New York's mass transit system is bursting at the seams. Anybody who's used the subways during rush hour knows the hell of trying to find space to even get on, much less find a seat. Even though the Second Ave line is (finally) under construction, and there are proposals to extend the #7 train, and a project to link the Long Island Railroad to Grand Central Station (currently it stops at Penn Station, 8 blocks south of Grand Central), none of this will be completed in years.

While the plan is to use the revenue generated from these fees to improve the city's mass transit system, I have no faith in this being accomplished by the MTA, a dysfunctional organization that has the amazing ability to celebrate record ridership, revenues, and profits, while at the same time announce a fare hike to cover projected budget shortfalls. It doesn't dissuade me from my opposition when the MTA announces a proposal to raise subway and bus fares by 2010, while New Jersey Transit announces their own fare hike. Bottom line: Everybody wants folks to use trains and buses more, but nobody wants to put more buses on the street or more trains on the tracks, but they sure want to pull more money out of your pocket, whether you're behind the wheel or being a straphanger.

2. Most people who commute into Manhattan don't drive to begin with. Only 33% of people who work in New York City get here using their own cars. The rest get here through a combination of trains, buses, ferries, bicycles, motorcycles, or walk. The real traffic? That's cars going through Manhattan, not into it. Up to 30% of Manhattan traffic is drivers just trying to get from New Jersey to Brooklyn or Queens (and vice versa), for traffic below Canal Street (to include use of the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Willamsburg Bridges, and the Holland and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnels) it can reach as high as 40%. For these cross-town commuters, there is no alternative for them to easily get from New Jersey to Brooklyn/Queens. It's either go all the way north and go through the George Washington Bridge, and enter Queens from the Bronx, or go all the way south and enter Brooklyn from Staten Island. The Cross Bronx expressway is a perpetual parking lot, and trying to go around through Staten Island using the Verrazano and Goethalls Bridges is not much of an alternative either, as the Goethalls bridge is very narrow and has very little traffic capacity, and it is so far out of the way that more time is spent taking either route versus crawling along Canal Street (it should also be mentioned that drivers taking the Verazanno into Staten Island pay a $9.00 toll, one way). By the way, it hasn't been discussed yet whether drivers who pay a toll from New Jersey, whether it's across the George Washington Bridge, or through the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels will be double tapped for this congestion charge.
Bottom line: Drivers in London have ways of getting from one side to the other and avoid getting charged. The local geography leaves New York drivers a bit short in that department.

I never liked the idea of hitting people in the wallets to change their behavior. Enough money is take out of my paycheck in federal income tax, state income tax, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, retirement savings, medical insurance, plus cost of living expenses, and now you can add this to the list of things.

Granted, this only affects people who live in New York City for now, but rest assured officials in other congested cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orlando, Miami, Washington, D.C., etc., have their eye on this plan. I have little faith in this plan except for it's ability to collect lots of money to be used on something other than public transportation improvements. Years from now, traffic in midtown and lower Manhattan will still be a mess, but you'll be paying out the nose, no matter what form of transportation you use to get to work.


http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20060306/5/1780
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....f31186d20e71dc

[Kadath]

I have to go into parts of NYC(Wall Street, Staten Island, the Upper East Side) on occasion for work and it is a nightmare. When possible I use trains and the subway. I agree that the NYC subway system is horribly crowded.

The bottom line is this: witness what happens when you cram too many people into too small of an area. I don't really see what possible transportation regulations (or advances for that matter) could really alleviate this problem. The fact is that people need to spread out. And that's how I view this policy: it's not to encourage people to use public transportation but to discourage them from coming into or through NYC. I don't think it will be particularly successful, but NYC needs to do something to negate the draw of being the most powerful economic force on the US east coast.

[Xazy]

I think there is need for a plan but I think this plan has lots of issue. Why should local residents have to pay to get to their own homes. There was docuementation that the people who the cost will really be hitting are the poor low middle class.

And I like what Mr. Silver said how it is kind of hypocritical of Bloomberg considering he wanted to put a stadium in the city which would have caused who knows how much more traffic.

Personally I am a big fan of Mr. Wiener plan which includes all truck deliveries are to be done at night. This would really help, and is done in several other major cities already.

[joshbaumgartner]

Any fee or toll structure is an inherently regressive taxation scheme, and grossly so. Thus yes, it does hit the poorer citizens far harder than the wealthier. Why do you think such schemes are such a darling alternative to progressive tax schemes in many right-wing circles?

Limiting our use of the infrastructure by making it too expensive for us to use the roads we paid for is to me an utterly immoral robbing of the commons. I don't live in NYC, so I guess this particular initiative is for NYC residents to decide on, but I think it is an incredibly short-sighted to reduce congestion by pricing-out those with less means from using their own city's infrastructure.

Here in Austin, we just opened a set of new toll roads, and I am thankfully not one who's commute lies along one. But it when I see them, I can't help but thing of them as manuments to the truth of Edward's 'Two Americas' comment.

The commons are to be just that: Common. That is we all should enjoy equal access to our commons. If the demand on them is so high that congestion is a problem, perhaps we could consider investment in expanding capacity instead of limiting what we have to those who already have more than the rest of us.

[Xazy]

A great op/ed piece I saw

Thank goodness for Sheldon Silver.
BY JACOB GERSHMAN
June 11, 2007

Mr. Silver, the obstructionist, the political merchant, the dour face of Albany's status quo, is one of the few voices of caution in the intensifying battle over congestion pricing.

Whatever the motive, Mr. Silver and one of his colleagues in the Assembly, Richard Brodsky, have been asking the right questions in a debate that could use a dose of reality.

Were it up to Mayor Bloomberg, state lawmakers would give him the go-ahead and ask questions later. The administration knows how business is done up there; it wants a quick-and-dirty, backroom deal. Why else would it wait until April to announce an extraordinarily complicated road-use charge scheme and then demand it sail through the Legislature by June?

As it's marketed by the administration, congestion pricing seems sensible. The city has too much traffic and pollution, problems that will get only worse as the population climbs to 9 million. The city also wants to build and expand its transit infrastructure, but it faces funding gaps on key projects, like the Second Avenue subway. Congestion pricing supposedly would, with a single stone, kill all the birds, easing traffic, stemming greenhouse gas emissions, and providing a new steady cash flow for mass transit.

Mr. Silver isn't convinced. Among his questions: How do we know congestion pricing would reduce traffic? Paying $8 a day is one thing, but how do we know the city isn't going to double the fee in a year or two? How do we know the extra revenue is going to be spent on important mass transit projects and won't be shifted around the budget every time a new fiscal crisis pops up.

And what about London? In its PlaNYC promotional materials, the Bloomberg administration describes the London's congestion pricing program as a smashing success. That's like describing a jellied eel as bagels and lox.

In February, British newspapers reported that congestion in the city, after dropping by 30% in 2003 when the program started, is back to pre-charge levels, despite a fee increase of more than 50% in 2005. Meanwhile, the charge zone has grown larger, spreading westward to areas such as Kensington, Chelsea, and Notting Hill. Manchester is now proposing to charge motorcyclists, which have been exempted from fees. The mayor of London, Kenneth Livingstone, is floating the idea of charging high emissions vehicles $50, three times more than other cars.

The experience of London points to a problem with the logic of congestion pricing. If the charges work by encouraging more people to take public transportation and deterring frivolous trips to the city, the reduction in traffic would make driving a more attractive option. The number of motorists would increase until equilibrium is reached. The failure to reduce traffic encourages city officials to hike up the fees until they cause enough pain, making the program an increasingly regressive tax.

That congestion pricing may not necessarily decrease congestion is a point that hasn't provoked much concern for Mr. Bloomberg or Goverznor Spitzer, who declared himself a supporter of the program last week.

As Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute points out, the driving force behind the mayor's plan is money. For the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is staring down a $1.8 billion deficit in 2010, congestion pricing is quite the golden goose. If Spitzer officials have their way, the money generated by the program would be used as operating aid to help close the MTA's budget gap.

If money weren't the object, they'd give the revenues back via a tax cut. Instead, the money taken away from drivers that is supposed to pay for long-term transit improvements would become a fiscal crutch for an agency that is lacking in accountability and efficiency.

Calling the program "MTA bailout pricing" might not resonate with New Yorkers but would have the benefit of being accurate. "Before you impose new costs, manage better, use the money more efficiently," said a historian of Mayor Giuliani's administration, Fred Siegel. "Wouldn't it make sense before you make thunderous pronouncements and lay out grand schemes that you get your own house in order?"

Mr. Siegel asks another question: If Mr. Bloomberg, the same person who dismissed traffic concerns related to the West Side stadium project, was seriously intent on combating traffic, why wouldn't he first roll back the scandalous number of parking permits issued to public employees in Lower Manhattan or do a better job of enforcing traffic violations that contribute to congestion? The answer may be that cracking down on double parking doesn't win a politician national attention — or bring in much money.

Now that the governor is siding with the mayor and Senate Republicans, who have depended on Mr. Bloomberg 's largess, are showing signs of backing the plan, the only true opposition is in the Assembly. I don't presume that Mr. Silver is a neutral observer whose opinion is an objective reflection of the merits and flaws of congestion pricing. But Mr. Silver's skepticism is just what the city needs.

A lot of good points here and what is interesting is the London parallel. While I was told about it, like a good lemming I never did any research in to it and accepted a politicians word on face value (silly me I know). I am hoping for Silver to go 2-0 against Bloomberg. Or at least get the plan changed enough that it has better potential.

I still strongly feel that deliveries at night will help with a lot of the congestion issues.

[Cynthetiq]

View: London's Congestion charge is a failure
Source: Mirror
posted with the TFP thread generator

London's Congestion charge is a failure
London's Congestion charge is a failure
By Jan Disley 7/08/2008

Congestion charging fails to cut jams on busy roads, experts warned yesterday.

Figures that will shock cities thinking of following London's example showed delays are just as bad as when the charge was introduced five years ago - despite fewer cars.

Paul Watters, the AA's head of public affairs, said of findings revealed in an official report: "It is clear the charge is not working.

"It has created a bureaucracy that costs a lot of money while congestion is just the same. The average speed of traffic in central London is 10mph - like it was 100 years ago. Incoming traffic might have dropped, but this does not count those already inside, or buses and taxis."

Manchester, Cambridge and Reading are among cities considering similar schemes and Mr Watters said: "I hope it encourages them to exercise caution."

The London initiative - in which private motorists have to pay £8 to drive through central London - had won admirers around the world, and US and European cities have made plans to follow its example.

Transport for London, which runs the capital's system, yesterday said 70,000 fewer cars a day entered the original charging zone - a fall of 21 per cent from pre-2003.

But it admitted road-works and measures for pedestrians, buses and cyclists meant roads were just as clogged for drivers.

London mayor Boris Johnson said the charge was a "blunt instrument" and he was working with TfL on a "comprehensive approach" to ease jams.

Malcolm Murray-Clark of TfL said: "Without the charge traffic problems would be much worse."

Many businesses claim charging has hit trade.

£137m REVENUE FR0M THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE IN 2007-2008. IT WILL BE PUT BACK INTO TRAFFIC SCHEMES

whew! thank goodness we didn't go with that experiment to just wind up with the same congestion just more expensive driving!

[jorgelito]

Don't they do this in Singapore? I thought it worked out pretty well there.

[flstf]

Make it expensive enough and it will get the riff-raff off the roads and clear the way for the politically connected and wealthy.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Don't they do this in Singapore? I thought it worked out pretty well there.

Yes, when I was there in 1989-2002 it was very much so effective. But there is also very high taxes on vehicles. Maybe Charlataan can expound more on this.

Be warned: it is very expensive to own and drive a car in Singapore. Wary of the fact that uncontrolled growth in the number of vehicles will result in traffic jams in land and road scarce Singapore, the government has implemented a range of measures to manage car ownership and usage. These include the Certificate of Entitlement (COE), Vehicle Quota System (VQS), road taxes and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP). All motor vehicles must be registered with the Land Transport Authority (LTA).

So what does all this mean for your dream car? Some estimates (including annual registration fee, import duty, road tax, registration fee and number plates) are: Audi A41.8 (A) $182,000 (including COE), BMW 328 (A) (2.8cc) $238,000 (including COE); Mercedes 200E $201,902; Volvo 940 Turbo Estate 2.0 (A) $160,753. Either start saving up or make sure your company gets you a car. If not, we're sure you won't find the public transport system here wanting!

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Yes, when I was there in 1989-2002 it was very much so effective. But there is also very high taxes on vehicles. Maybe Charlataan can expound more on this.

Cool, it seems to work in Singapore. But then again, they have a kick ass public transportation system providing alternatives to cars.

Alas, in LA, we do not.

[biznatch]

Yeah, I commute to NYC from Westchester, using Metro-North Railroad. It takes longer than a car (depending on traffic) and can be quite pricey, but not as pricey as gas + tolls + parking.
Fortunately I don't often travel at the peak of rush hours, so I can find a seat most times.
Still, I can't wait for the 2nd Ave Subway. They need to complete sections of the tunnel (parts of the tunnel were already built before they restarted the project.
It'll take a while because they have to work half by half(they can't block the whole Avenue, so they do the east side and the west side separately).
I still think the trains could be way more frequent because there's been a few times where I couldn't get on the train several times in a row.

[pointbock69]

London is truly a nightmare, the traffic is still horendous and the burden on the folks already paying steep taxes in that fair city are the ones most negatively impacted. The "little" guy gets screwed once again!!

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by pointbock69

London is truly a nightmare, the traffic is still horendous and the burden on the folks already paying steep taxes in that fair city are the ones most negatively impacted. The "little" guy gets screwed once again!!

Oh God, I hope they get it together for the Olympics.

[tisonlyi]

Alter traffic flows - one way systems, bus lanes, etc - put up some access barriers around the area you don't want so many vehicles. Set a total amount of vehicles. Count the vehicles in, count the vehicles out. Charge for access. (exceptions for buses, etc)

Voila, massive disruption to everyone, not just the poor.

If you want better public transport (schools, hospital, services, etc) force the wealthy to endure the hardships of the poor(er). If you want something reduced, set a limit and guard the border.

Really, the centre of all major/semi-major cities should be pretty much car-free.

[Xazy]

NYC should do what was done in other major cities like Chicago, no deliveries during the daytime. Congestion planning was doomed from the start, why would the majority of New York State elected officials vote for a special tax for their constituents to come in to Manhattan? The answer is they would not be representing their community properly by voting yes to it, and we get one major scape goat which is the speaker of the house (who resides in NYC) for being the one to say that despite it being obvious that the votes were not there.