Congestion Pricing

daver

armchair_warrior wrote: how bout taxing the guys who drive suv's and Luxury cars more. and also single riders more. instead of the car pool guys etc...

I'm not sure about the luxury cars, but I would be for exempting 3+ person carpools from payment. Pending further discussion/study. It would seem to me that carpooling is already reducing the amount of cars, therefore justifying a reduction or elimination of the fee.

sweet tea

i know i already said this farther up the thread, but carpoolers are already paying less, by virtue of the fact that there are more people to divide the cost among.

me in my (imaginary car) = $8
me + 3 (imaginary?) friends in my (imaginary) car = $8= $2/person

why complicate things further?

daver

sweet tea wrote: i know i already said this farther up the thread, but carpoolers are already paying less, by virtue of the fact that there are more people to divide the cost among.

me in my (imaginary car) = $8
me + 3 (imaginary?) friends in my (imaginary) car = $8= $2/person

why complicate things further?

I could go either way, but my thought is that we are trying to encourage fewer cars, and as such giving an extra incentive to carpoolers above and beyond dividing the cost is appropriate. Provided it doesn't overly complicate the process.

sweet tea

daver wrote:
I could go either way, but my thought is that we are trying to encourage fewer cars, and as such giving an extra incentive to carpoolers above and beyond dividing the cost is appropriate.

carpooling is great, but better (in terms of reducing traffic) is those potential carpoolers taking public transit. an incentive to carpool is potentially an incentive to drive when it's not necessary.

armchair_warrior

right now every time i drive any where i always see one guy driving. car pooling would be a start. once you get people used to car pooling maybe and hopefully they'll increase public transportation. to show that it isn't so bad.

for now i think they should be either given discounts or just the same price to just encourage people to not drive alone.

markroth8

Subject: Congestion Pricing = Energy Security for NYC

I'm definitely pro congestion pricing.

Drivers are not paying the full cost to offset the impact they are having on the energy security of the city.

As long as the revenue is correctly spent on improving transportation alternatives, congestion pricing is a great way to prepare the city for the coming oil crisis. NYC can lead the way for the rest of the country.

Rather than wait for the prices to soar due to energy supply problems, let's pay the real cost of driving now and use the money to improve our infrastructure so that when oil quadruples in price the city is ready to deal with it.

http://www.peakoilnyc.org/
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B1EF63B5A0C738DDDAE0894DF404482

doctorj

Subject: Re: Congestion Pricing = Energy Security for NYC

markroth8 wrote: I'm definitely pro congestion pricing.

Me too, but "energy security" and peak oil is bogus. Unfortunately for the planet and for us, the untaxed price is not going to quadruple, because there are enormous reserves of hydrocarbons, enough for many generations, that can be converted to gasoline for transport at prices not much greater than today's. Unchecked, we'll burn up before we run out.

markroth8

Subject: Re: Congestion Pricing = Energy Security for NYC

doctorj wrote: [quote=markroth8]I'm definitely pro congestion pricing.

Me too, but "energy security" and peak oil is bogus. Unfortunately for the planet and for us, the untaxed price is not going to quadruple, because there are enormous reserves of hydrocarbons, enough for many generations, that can be converted to gasoline for transport at prices not much greater than today's. Unchecked, we'll burn up before we run out.

There seem to be few analysts now that doubt that we've either already reached "peak oil" or that we'll reach it within the next 10 years or so. Do you believe otherwise, or are you just saying that oil supply problems won't be an issue because we'll switch to other things to burn instead?

I hope the latter isn't true because you're right, that would have a terrible impact on the environment. Imagine switching to coal and burning through all of that, too? Yikes...

"Peak oil" aside, we've already seen in the 1970s what can happen to NYC if there are oil supply problems in the shorter term (e.g. due to political instability). Congestion pricing (or anything else that gets the city to upgrade its alternative transportation infrastructure) will only help make NYC more livable during crises, thus the energy security.

doctorj

Subject: Re: Congestion Pricing = Energy Security for NYC

markroth8 wrote:
There seem to be few analysts now that doubt that we've either already reached "peak oil" or that we'll reach it within the next 10 years or so. Do you believe otherwise, or are you just saying that oil supply problems won't be an issue because we'll switch to other things to burn instead?

I hope the latter isn't true because you're right, that would have a terrible impact on the environment. Imagine switching to coal and burning through all of that, too? Yikes...

Decline of traditional spurting out of the ground crude oil, while probably upon us soon if not now, won't be an issue. Between Fischer-Tropsch (e.g. highly profitable SASOL), Mobil MTG and other GTL technologies, tar sands, and oil shales, any of which can ramp up at various price points close to today's, and which have enormous reserves, supply of gasoline and other liquid fuels can continue for the foreseeable future (i.e. for centuries). There is so much accessible carbon in the earth's crust (coal, tar, shale, methane clathrates, etc.) it's not funny in the slightest. There may be smallish petroleum price shocks in response to events, but there will be no quadrupling. Indeed, this is going to have a terrible impact on the environment. We are well and truly rooted unless we implement strict international carbon pricing, and soon. In a way I wish peak oil were an issue, but scarily it's no problem at all. The true situation is less dire for us, potentially much worse for coming generations.

Bush's "energy security" is a bit of a furphy, because the international market is unlikely to collapse, even in times of war, nor be manipulated again in the way it was by OPEC, and because the alternative sources of carbon are found everywhere (e.g. Canada and Venezuela each have as much oil in sand as the middle east has crude oil; the US could even be self-sufficient using CTL without a rise in gasoline prices), not just a handful of less stable countries. If fuel supplies are not seriously at risk in the medium term, talk of energy security is merely a way to push certain domestic and foreign policy objectives du jour.

We're unlikely to see a replay of what happened in the 70s, because no one is foolish enough anymore to try to fix prices and cause a transient mismatch between supply and demand like Carter did. As long as everything is business as usual, as demand continues to rise, the shortfall with respect to supply of crude oil will be progressively made up by synthetic fuels and mining and refining of oily sands and rocks. This is projected by the US DOE and I believe them; it's the path of least resistance whereas lowering demand or shifting to nuclear/hydrogen/renewables is not. Unlike alternatives, since these fuels are already economically competitive if prices stay where they are, using current technology, if prices were to spike to $100 per barrel or more due to e.g. a crisis in the middle east, there would be a goldrush to add synthetic capacity, potentially followed by a glut and a drop in price as there was in the 80s and 90s.

I could not agree more that congestion pricing and any other measures that discourage private motorized transport would be beneficial for the city in all sorts of ways (quality of life, economics, tourism, environment, preparedness for carbon pricing, etc.).

markroth8

Subject: Re: Congestion Pricing = Energy Security for NYC

doctorj wrote: Bush's "energy security" is a bit of a furphy...

I don't think I've ever heard Bush say anything intelligent about energy security.

However, I read this Sierra Club report recently and thought it was interesting:

http://www.beyondoilnyc.org/report-preparing-fuel-volatility.html

It's the short-term volatility I think NYC needs to prepare for. I agree that long-term economic forces will allow us to come up with alternatives (and left unchecked those alternatives are likely to screw the environment even more). Short-term we will need to eat and live. When energy prices spike, NYC can potentially be a more pleasant place to do both if we implement congestion pricing now.

escap

Subject: Re: Congestion Pricing = Energy Security for NYC

doctorj wrote:
We're unlikely to see a replay of what happened in the 70s, because no one is foolish enough anymore to try to fix prices and cause a transient mismatch between supply and demand like Carter did.

My my, you really haven't been paying attention to the world, have you? Price controls are everywhere!! And despite their obvious and horrendous effects, they continue to enjoy widespread popularity across the globe. Energy is one of the most heavily price controlled industries in this country or any other, and not coincidentally one of the most distorted markets. Have you already forgotten the California debacle--Gov. Davis refused to remove electricity price caps in California despite repeated warnings, and your "transient mismatch" ensued as predicted. That was less than a decade ago, and yet just this past year we heard calls for price caps at the pump from a lot of prominent politicians. Not to mention the fact that outside of the developed world, the rest of the planet has strict price controls and subsidies on energy. With virtually free oil provided to consumers in most oil-producing states, how long will it be until those economies are driving up demand exponentially and sending prices even higher? Already there are gas shortages in Iran and Mexico as a result of these kinds of policies, even though both those countries sit atop vast natural gas and/or oil reserves.

Doctorj, please never underestimate mankind's propensity towards foolishness, or its stubborn refusal to even pay lip service to simple economic principles. Yes, price ceilings lead to shortages--now shall we discuss rent control anyone...??

doctorj

You're right escap, the foolishness continues, though it is sometimes disguised in different ways, e.g. subsidies rather than Diocletian- or Mugabe-style edicts.

Presumably if the goal is to protect consumers from price fluctuations, there are good rather than bad ways to do this. For example, a government could buy hedging contracts at market rates on a regular basis, and then tax or subsidize as the underlying price goes down or up. Or add a tax higher than any expected price spike, then allow consumers to claim cash back after the fact at an average price per gallon on a month by month basis.

In South Africa you have something like the reverse of this: the cost of their domestic synthetic fuel is fixed and amortized over a long period due to the large investment required up front. When oil prices drop below a benchmark, the government subsidizes the producer, and when prices rise abpve a benchmark, it taxes the producer. Consumers pay the going rate whether it's imported (currently expensive) or domestic (currently cheap).

escap

Very interesting, doctorj, thanks. I think that some intervention to reduce volatility is a worthy idea. What I see most, however, is simply intervention to reduce prices, which is ultimately artificial. Another looming danger on the horizon, and prime example of policy foolishness, is corn ethanol, which causes little to no reduction of greenhouse gases, is bad for the earth, and is driving food prices up around the globe, especially hurting poor people (ask a Mexican what's happened to the price of tortillas lately for an example). Oh, and the corn ethanol craze is also partially driven by the moronic goal of reducing our "dependence on foreign oil". Sorry, did I miss the moment that self-sufficiency was discovered to be superior to trading comparative advantages? Has North Korea's economy surpassed Hong Kong's recently without my realizing? We should be importing energy from the most efficient producers (Brazilian sugar cane ethanol comes to mind, which we are blocking of course), rather than just handing ADM a giant corporate subsidy in the name of the foolhardy goal of "energy independence". /sigh/ I'm getting depressed.... ](*,)

doctorj

You are absolutely right escap about the corn ethanol. Very bad idea from all angles, for the environment, for people here and abroad. Unless of course you're an agribusiness in a swing state or a politician elected on those votes, in which case it's a winner so long as you can fool the rest of the electorate. Most people ought to be able to see that burning food rather than eating it is not smart. As someone who very rarely uses any form of motorized transport, I really object to the price of food rising much faster than "core" inflation. This is a prime example of what I meant above by "energy security" being a smokescreen for a nefarious domestic political objective.

escap

I love it when we agree.

markroth8

escap wrote: I love it when we agree.

Yeah, now what can we do to get the thing passed?

escap

Get rid of two of the most corrupt politicians in America -- Bruno and Silver.

queencallipygos

Today's commute seems to have renewed the congestion pricing issue for many...anyone have any other thoughts?

I have wondered, actually, why there aren't more interborough buses. I know that there are a handful that run between Brooklyn and Manhattan/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx and Manhattan, but they seem to only be a couple, and only in select areas. While more interborough buses would certainly have helped today, I wonder if they wouldn't on the other hand cause more traffic problems?

so -- thoughts, anyone?

limestonekid

I think it has got more people talking about it again but NOT in a good way. The system TOTALLY broke down today.

Perhaps it was just a freak storm and nothing more but now when you bring up the subject of congestion pricing and putting more people on mass transit the reply is going to be "Yeah, well do you remember the storm on August 8th when the whole system got flooded out?"

daver

queencallipygos wrote: I have wondered, actually, why there aren't more interborough buses. I know that there are a handful that run between Brooklyn and Manhattan/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx and Manhattan, but they seem to only be a couple, and only in select areas. While more interborough buses would certainly have helped today, I wonder if they wouldn't on the other hand cause more traffic problems?

so -- thoughts, anyone?

My thought is that I generally have avoided those because I don't want to pay $5. I already have my monthly unlimited for $76, adding $5 for each X-bus trip adds up right quick, screw that.

sweet tea

daver wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]I have wondered, actually, why there aren't more interborough buses. I know that there are a handful that run between Brooklyn and Manhattan/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx and Manhattan, but they seem to only be a couple, and only in select areas. While more interborough buses would certainly have helped today, I wonder if they wouldn't on the other hand cause more traffic problems?

so -- thoughts, anyone?

My thought is that I generally have avoided those because I don't want to pay $5. I already have my monthly unlimited for $76, adding $5 for each X-bus trip adds up right quick, screw that.

it's ridiculous that they're aren't at least brooklyn-queens routes. it's the same piece of land, for crying out loud. and it shouldn't be x-buses either -- just regular routes, stopping every few blocks, but not arbitrarily ending at the county line. :roll:

i think the traffic impact would be negligible.

queencallipygos

sweet tea wrote: it's ridiculous that they're aren't at least brooklyn-queens routes. it's the same piece of land, for crying out loud. and it shouldn't be x-buses either -- just regular routes, stopping every few blocks, but not arbitrarily ending at the county line. :roll:

Well, there is the B61; that runs through Brooklyn, but it does cross the border and goes into Long Island City.

I was referring more to the "X" buses I see -- granted, it looks like most of them are for people in the far reaches of the different boroughs that have no subway options (like out in Gerritsen Beach). But some kind of express buses, that made only a couple stops in Brooklyn -- say one that stops somewhere on Atlantic Avenue and then at Borough Hall -- and then a couple stops in Manhattan (say, one at Wall Street and one at Houston, or one at Houston and one in Midtown), seems like they would be useful.

jeffrey

sweet tea wrote: it's ridiculous that they're aren't at least brooklyn-queens routes. it's the same piece of land, for crying out loud. and it shouldn't be x-buses either -- just regular routes, stopping every few blocks, but not arbitrarily ending at the county line. :roll:

The B61 does exactly this, going from the end of Van Brunt Street in Red Hook through Jay Street in downtown Brooklyn and then all the way up through Williamsburg and over into Queens, ending at Queens Plaza.

That is one lonnnnnng ride for your metrocard fare.

queencallipygos

Looks like great minds think alike, jeffrey. ;-)

jeffrey

I propose a toast to mark this fine occasion...



Melba, for example.

(hee)

sweet tea

great bus, the B61. although queens plaza isn't all that far into queens -- why not keep heading up through astoria?

surely i'm not the only one who wants to travel from brooklyn to queens without going through manhattan? (and let's leave the green ghost out of this.) i understand that the subways aren't flexible, but bus routes can be extended/combined pretty easily.

daver

All NYC transit goes to Manhattan.</MTA>

- or -

All your transit are belong to Manhattan.

Someone isn't paying attention to all the surveys showing that people aren't commuting into Manhattan for work at nearly the levels they historically have. People are going every which way for work, and the system will continue to break down until someone faces reality and realigns with what is really going down.

queencallipygos

daver wrote: Someone isn't paying attention to all the surveys showing that people aren't commuting into Manhattan for work at nearly the levels they historically have. People are going every which way for work, and the system will continue to break down until someone faces reality and realigns with what is really going down.

Interestingly, I've just left a comment on the NY Times discussion forum about the transit problems; someone was griping about all the gripers, saying that the fact that the system got back up so fast was something admirable.

And I agree, it is. But I pointed out that most the complaints people were making was about the MTA's not communicating what was going on efficiently enough to people. It's great if you got 80% of the system back up in only 24 hours, yes; but if you've been stranded in Queens because the MTA said a shuttle bus was replacing G service, and you got there only to find that there was no such shuttle bus, the fact that "but the 4, 5, and A are all running" doesn't really mean jack squat. That's information I needed to know back when I was looking at the MTA site and figuring out how I was going to get home.

...In other words -- I think there's a general communication problem at the MTA -- both between riders and operators, between operators and operators, between administrators and operators, and between administrators and riders. The MTA doesn't seem to be able to talk to us, so the fact that they're also not listening to us seems to further indicate the root of the problem.

j.b.

that's a good point - I find the MTA service advisory page useless. They always seem to be 8 hours behind on actual events. (If you could even get to the service advisory page yesterday. What a joke of a set up.)

It's not rocket science to get updates out on a timely basis. Why not get 311 involved in this, since the MTA blows at notifications?

daver

MTA beyond sucks at notifications. And if you call 311 they transfer you to a MTA line, which in my experience is NEVER answered. And I've called it repeatedly for hours at times trying to find a way to/from work. And the MTA's web page melted down yesterday finally, couldn't even get bullshit announcements lacking information anymore after a bit.