March 3, 2006
Congestion Questions
Last November, Gothamist fell in love with the idea of congestion pricing for the city. The Partnership for New York City has been investigating the opportunity to make the city less crowded with cars - or if it is crowded with cars, then drivers will have to pay. However, there is quite a bit of opposition to the plan, and with the Mayor saying that the city would investigate using congestion pricing to relieve city traffic, people freaked out. Mayor had to backtrack a little, by saying, "The real world is, not everybody is going to use mass transit. I think it's relatively impractical to take a whole bunch of city streets and say we're just not going to allow cars on them." But congestion pricing doesn't necessarily have to be about eliminating streets for drivers - it's about making people weigh whether or not they really want to use their cars (we suspect that people who can afford to pay for their SUV's gas will pay to drive around). The NY Times reported that the Queens Chamber of Commerce released a report that basically said congestion pricing would lead to a $1.9 billion drop in revenue daily, but pro-congestion pricing groups say the report (which was sponsored by - you guessed it - owners of parking garages) doesn't factor in the productivity lost to traffic. Gothamist doubts that Mayor Bloomberg will allow a full-up congestion pricing plan for the city, but given his somewhat iconoclastic ways (hello, noise ban; hello, smoking ban), he might be ready to do something dramatic with city traffic.
Last week's report from Transportation Alternatives that noted private cars cause the most traffic.
|
WOW!
A bunch of guys who want more money devoted to mass transit produce a study saying that people who don't use mass transit all the time are troublemakers!
Your naivete is astounding!
The other study ...."(which was sponsored by - you guessed it - owners of parking garages)"
Neat that you added that-but didn't point out that Transportation Alternatives is a " NYC-area non-profit citizens group working for better bicycling, walking and public transit, and fewer cars. "
So I guess THEY'RE trustworthy!
That's pretty biased and somewhat corrupt on your part Jen.
I am still waiting to realize what could be the negative effects of congestion pricing. I mean wouldn't it stand to reason that if people did decide not to come into Manhattan, they would simply transfer their business to their own boroughs? and wouldn't residents of Manhattan feel inclined to enjoy the outdoors more (making more trips, taking more strolls, bike rides etc.) because their is less noise, more ease to get around and better air quality?
I believe the negative effects are all about the cash. Some business in the city you simply can't do outisde it-you can't go to a "Broadway show" or for drinks "in the city". Although that depends on the actual pricing plan.
Also-the Port Authority might have issues with losing some toll revenue.
Further-how do you implement it?!?
GPS
EZ Pass
Toll Booths
It might take awhile to figure this out.
I revise my earlier comments. I still think it was unprofessional to target small businesspersons and infer that they would alter a study, when the opposition, Transportation Alternatives is really a business in itself and has just as much chance for corruption.
The opposition that matters isn't parking garage owners, it's public employees and politicians who park for free.
The rich will pay to drive in, and be happy to do so if it means less traffic. The rest of us use transit, and would benefit from less traffic as well -- especially if we need an ambulance.
The city has finite street capacity. It doesn't want no one driving in; that would waste the capacity. If all the entrances were EZ-tolled, the tolls could be increased or decreased depending on how many people were coming. If suddenly the streets and theaters were empty, you'd cut the toll.
Congestion pricing doesn't deal with the occupancy issue; it just tries to deal with the number of cars by imposing a fee. But, once you cut out people who can't pay the fee, it might very well be worth it to drive in alone - so we'll have a lot of BMWs and Mercedes without passengers instead of Toyotas and Ford.
It's a regressive tax, which, once upon a time, would have meant it would be rejected out of hand - equality, fairness, all that.
What we need are HOV restrictions - we had them for a year or so after 9/11, and somehow all the people who drive in alone in their cars managed to get to work. It shouldn't matter if you're rich or poor - you don't get to drive alone.
The city should put up sidewalk barrricades around my neighborhood to keep out the riff raff. There could be ticket booths and turnstiles on Houston street where people could pay five dollars to enter. For an extra fee they could access Tompkins Square Park, but only at off-peak times when I don't want to use it.
Thank you Jen, for drawing attention to this important issue. I think we should also emphasize the fact that this isn't just about traffic, it's about health. Reducing the number of cars in New York would improve air quality and reduce the likelihood of being killed by a car. Less congestion will also encourage bicycling and other activities that lead to improved health. Under the current system, the residents of the city of paying (in health) for the convenience of others. People will keep coming to New York whether they can drive in or not- they'll just drive less often.
Early in his administration Bloomberg dropped the topic of bridge tolls like a bad habit. I doubt he'll do more than pay lip service to a similar scheme.
Transit lobbyists, car haters and siege mentality Manhattanites by themselves are easy pickings for the garage owners and the politicos in their pockets.
The real hope that it may come to pass is the endorsement from members of the business community.
I believe TA mentioned that the pricing would be implimented through the use of traffic light mounted cameras (similar to some places in Europe), thus no EZ passes would be needed and no delays at token booths would result. This is in fact not a "regressive tax." Most poor New Yorkers use public transportation and cannot afford to drive a car (much less the insurance). This plan would force the people who use the streets the most to pay for that right. What is continually ignored here are the positive economic benefits of the congestion pricing plan. How many dollars are wasted each year because of inefficient travel in NYC? How much more money would businesses make if they paid lower transportation costs to stock items (because delivery trucks could move in and out of the city more quickly with less traffic)? I remember talking about this plan with someone who workes for an art moving company. According to him, even a 30% reduction in traffic would result in HUGE saving to his company alone. The fact is, business owners are probably losing money because individuals selfishly decide to clog the NYC roads. NYC traffic is analogous to a "tragedy of the commons" problem. When no one pays for the right to use roads, everyone will use them, thus leading to dangerous and inefficient roads. If the city charges for the right to use roads which are commonly congested, these roads will become less clogged, result in better efficiency for the people who do use them, reduce the risk to bikers and pedestrians, and lower pollution levels. This is a win-win situation for almost everyone.
big brother is watching you...DRIVE!
Studying the traffic patterns on certain major cross streets in Midtown, one can see large, empty express buses trying to turn, and blocking lanes of traffic behind them. Maybe that is part of the congestion problem, and maybe if the MTA used their buses and drivers more efficiently, mass transit would be a more attractive option than driving. Nycityscape.com found that the MTA should probably trim some of its rush-hour express bus service to Staten Island: See this report.