Congestion Pricing

guvna

Capt. Planet wrote: I actually attended the City Council hearing a week ago Monday on congestion pricing. It was very interesting. Many of the skeptics on the Council raising many of the questions being raised in this forum. I must say I was trully impressed the DOT Commissioner. She really had a command of the issues and believe me, the City has studied this plan to death. I have a personal friend who is one of the deputy commissioners at DOT. I've known this guy for 20 years. He analyzes everything six ways from Sunday. Of course no one will know what will happen until we try it, but trust me, after hearing the DOT people present to the Council, there is very little about this plan that hasn't been thought through.

The question I have for the skeptics who claim to be for stopping global warming: what is your plan? I mean really, let's get serious. The bottom line is - you don't have one and don't really care about stopping global warming either. 'Nuf said. Get up out of our easy chairs and roll up your sleaves. THis plan needs everybody's help. It will only work if you do your part.

Did they have a good look at who actually drives into the City from 6-6 every day though? I would love to think they did, but I wouldnt be surprised if this is all just a revenue generating plan that has global warming as a distant afterthought.

I would guess that its mostly business people, and also company owned vehicles (delivery vans/trucks and service vehicles). When I see some of the pro-congestion plan advertisements out there, like the one showing the supposedly well-off middle aged white guy from Westchester driving into he City (they mentioned the median income), I wonder what they're thinking. Do they really think that he is going to ditch his car for the subway? He'll just get reimbursed. So, the City will get the revenue, but the pollution will continue. In fact, I wouldnt be surprised if more rich guys who didnt like the congestion before now choose to drive because the traffic will be lighter! LOL. Then, all the poor people will have been priced out of their cars and into the dreadful over crowded subways, and the rich guys will all drive into the City in throngs and have it all to themselves.

A good plan to reduce global warming would involve the government having meaningful emissions standards, and maybe mandating hybrids. Congestion pricing just looks like a way for the rich to pay a small fee to drive in a less congested City. They'll love it, and the City will love it. Everyone else can go enjoy the subways.

homeowner

I just don't see how this plan works when by the MTA's own admission the majority of the subway lines are running at 90% of capacity or greater and the few lines that are not are in neighborhoods that are experiencing a lot of growth (Williamsburg, Bushwick, etc).

Where are all of these people going to go? I ride the subways daily and I know that many mornings the 4 train is standing room only at Franklin Avenue which is the SECOND stop on the line. The only way to get a seat into the city is to be on the train before 7:00am. There are many mornings where trains pull into Borough Hall and they are so full that folks there can't get on.

The idea that many people will switch to riding bikes or walking to work is also pretty far-fetched. Commuting by bike is okay if you work somewhere with a more casual dress requirement. Or if you live in Manhattan. But a commute from Crown Heights to midtown by bike everyday is a horse of a different color. Most folks who are in corporate america or anywhere that requires a suit and tie will not want to start their day with a 5 mile ride in a suit. And I've got to believe that people that are truly walking distance from work are already walking.

vandy_vigilante

I'm sorry but the NYC subway system is amazing. As a transplant hailing from two cities with very poor public transit the MTA blows everything else in the US out of the water.

However, "homeowner", your concerns regarding the capacity of the subway system are well founded. I ask you this though, how is the city going to raise the types of funds required to dramatically increase the capacity of the system?

Thats right, congestion pricing. The subway system is a public service. That means that the public pays for AND benefits from that service. Congestion taxes actually charge those that use the transportation system inefficiently (selfishly) and applies those extra funds to improving the system for the most people.

I have also neglected the issue of the costs that EVERYONE living in the system pays so that drivers can fit in with the corporate dress code.

guvna

Vandy_Vigilante wrote: I'm sorry but the NYC subway system is amazing. As a transplant hailing from two cities with very poor public transit the MTA blows everything else in the US out of the water.

However, "homeowner", your concerns regarding the capacity of the subway system are well founded. I ask you this though, how is the city going to raise the types of funds required to dramatically increase the capacity of the system?

Thats right, congestion pricing. The subway system is a public service. That means that the public pays for AND benefits from that service. Congestion taxes actually charge those that use the transportation system inefficiently (selfishly) and applies those extra funds to improving the system for the most people.

I have also neglected the issue of the costs that EVERYONE living in the system pays so that drivers can fit in with the corporate dress code.

Its all relative. Being stuck in a sauna wearing a suit jammed up against loads of others in what feels like 90 degrees on the platform will always suck to me. That will get worse before it gets better, if it ever gets better at all.

Thats why I said 'dreadful over crowded subway'.

As for how the MTA can fund service and capacity improvements, every time they raise the fare they say it is to accomplish precisely these issues. They had a surplus the other day. Now, suddenly they're short again. They have little credibility in my eyes, so I am not hopeful that any congestion pricing money will lead to higher capacity/ better service. It sounds lovely in theory, but their past conduct, and the way I think things will actually pan out, leave me thinking that folks shouldnt get their hopes up too high.

bkchickie

I agree with VandyV: for the most part the MTA works amazingly well. New York's the first city I've lived in where I've been able to rely on public transit completely. As far as not driving into Manhattan at 6pm goes, I think that's what the congestion pricing was meant to do. I don't think that enough people with stay clear for businesses to feel it.

parkslopeboy

I don't own a car so i'm for it. But i do occasionally use Zipcar, so i wonder what happens when you use a Zipcar or get a rental car.

homeowner

Vandy_Vigilante wrote: I'm sorry but the NYC subway system is amazing. As a transplant hailing from two cities with very poor public transit the MTA blows everything else in the US out of the water.

However, "homeowner", your concerns regarding the capacity of the subway system are well founded. I ask you this though, how is the city going to raise the types of funds required to dramatically increase the capacity of the system?

Thats right, congestion pricing. The subway system is a public service. That means that the public pays for AND benefits from that service. Congestion taxes actually charge those that use the transportation system inefficiently (selfishly) and applies those extra funds to improving the system for the most people.

I have also neglected the issue of the costs that EVERYONE living in the system pays so that drivers can fit in with the corporate dress code.

First, I get what you are trying to say about using transportation alterntives inefficiently, but the reality is that all of us, even those riding the subways are using the system selfishly because we are paying far less than the actual cost of our trip. The MTA issues billions in municipal bonds each year. If you read any of the official statements that accompany those deals the MTA is very clear that the subways system receives a tremendous subsidy from the state. The reality is that if riders were expected to bear the full cost of an actual subway ride, the cost would be out of reach for many. What is to stop the MTA from taking congestion pricing money and simply reducing the amount of that subsidy? As of right now, with the current plan, nothing would prohibit this action from occuring.

Secondly, the city does not operate or control the MTA. THE MTA IS A STATE AUTHORITY!!! It receives funds from fairboxes collected from commuters, but neither the Mayor nor the City Council control the Authority in any way shape or form. Control is completely in the hands of the governor and Legislature. Since the overwhelming majority of state legislators are from outside of NYC and since there is little to no mass transit in most of the state, the desire of those folks to spend billions of dollars on a system that impacts only a portion of state residents and none of their constituents is limited at best.

This blind belief that congestion pricing dollars will go to support the increase in services is not backed by any agreement between the city and the state to allow for this to occur. There is no quid pro quo and if the city decides to keep all the congestion pricing money and spend it to balance its budget, pay for operating costs, or fund salary increases for city employees it could do so without any problems. Conversely, the city must receive assurances that if it were to funnel moneys to the MTA those funds would be used only for improvements to the subway system and not to pay for service improvements on Metro-North, the LIRR, or the bus systems.

Look, I like the concept of improved subway service as much as the next guy, but the MTA has not taken ANY steps to expand the system outside of the planned 2nd Ave subway line in almost thirty years. Where is the plan to connect the SI subway to subway service in either Manhattan or Brooklyn? Where is the plan for a new subway line for the portions of Brooklyn and Queens that have NO subway service currently? High-speed rail? Expanded express bus service? There have been zero initiatives to increase capacity. Hell, they have barely managed to make the system wheelchair accessible. I've also noted that congestion pricing is not being pushed by the MTA. Clearly, they have a different agenda that the mayor with respect to improving subway service.

My view is that what congestion pricing will do is create a big pot of money for the next Mayor to use. Whether it will be used to reduce congestion remains to be seen.

carnivore

I just got this from the MTA. If you're interested in particpating in the decision-making process for future capital improvements and are free at 1pm on Wednesday, you should sign up for this "Webinar":

Dear MTA customer

Building on the feedback received from past public outreach
initiatives, the MTA is committed to keeping our customers informed and continuing
a dialogue with our customers. To advance this discussion, we will be
holding four "webinars,î or online seminars, this year.

You are invited to participate in the first of these MTA Webinars on
Wednesday, April 9th which will address the proposed MTA 2008-2013
Capital Plan now under consideration. You are receiving this invitation as a
past participant in the November 2007 MTA Public Engagement Workshop
and /or the first MTA Webinar held in December 2007.

The $29.5 billion plan continues the MTAís vital system maintenance
and improvement programs, completes the expansion projects currently
underway, and pursues further capacity expansion to accommodate booming
growth. Our website includes the copies of the Capital Program document
and a summary, power point presentation at:
http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/ .

What: MTA Webinar
Why: To discuss and answer questions on the MTA's proposed Capital
Program
Who:MTA Executive Director and CEO Elliot G. Sander and senior staff

When: April 9, 2008, Noon - 1:00 p.m.
Where:mta.info

No registration is required. Participants will be able to submit
questions on the MTA website to be answered verbally by Mr. Sander and MTA
staff on the live broadcast.

Sincerely,



Douglas R. Sussman
Community Affairs

eggcream

Good!

Congestion Pricing Plan Dead

April 07, 2008

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan died in Albany this afternoon after not getting enough support in the State Assembly ahead of tonight's midnight deadline to qualify for millions in federal funding.

The state Legislature faced a midnight deadline to approve the plan to charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street on weekdays, or else lose $354 million in federal funding. The money would have helped kick star the initiative.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver refused to bring the proposal up for vote in his chamber, saying it did not have enough support in the Democrat-controlled house.

The decision was made following a closed-door meeting this morning.

While congestion pricing did have the support of the Republican-led State Senate and its leader Joseph Bruno, it needed to be approved by both houses. The proposal also had the support of Governor David Paterson.

Opponents of the plan, including many commuters who spoke with NY1 this morning, called it just another tax on those who can afford it least.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=80238">
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=80238

longtimesloper

eggcream wrote: Good!

Congestion Pricing Plan Dead

April 07, 2008

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan died in Albany this afternoon after not getting enough support in the State Assembly ahead of tonight's midnight deadline to qualify for millions in federal funding.

The state Legislature faced a midnight deadline to approve the plan to charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street on weekdays, or else lose $354 million in federal funding. The money would have helped kick star the initiative.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver refused to bring the proposal up for vote in his chamber, saying it did not have enough support in the Democrat-controlled house.

The decision was made following a closed-door meeting this morning.

While congestion pricing did have the support of the Republican-led State Senate and its leader Joseph Bruno, it needed to be approved by both houses. The proposal also had the support of Governor David Paterson.

Opponents of the plan, including many commuters who spoke with NY1 this morning, called it just another tax on those who can afford it least.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=80238">
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=80238

YEAH!

now, if NYC is really concerned for the environment and traffic in Manhattan-how about we implement and enforce carpooling laws? Only emergency vehicles, work vehicles, commercial vehicles allowed to drive into the city, all others must have at least 2 people in the car to enter. Now, that would truly help congestion and pollution, not the $8 tax the city was trying to pass off on us under the guise of helping the MTA.

guvna

Does anyone know why they went with $8? I reckon that most of the reaction against it was due to the amount being asked. On the one hand, a large fee would seemingly discourage driving (which is the goal of the program), while a smaller fee wouldve made it more likely to get passage. I am surprised that they didnt go with a $3/4 fee to get started, then increase it after 1 or 2 years.

Anyway, it is dead, and not a moment too soon. I argued above that a better policy would focus on stronger emissions standards, and maybe mandating hybrids (both really cry out for Federal standards), but it seems even such a wide-ranging approach wouldnt be enough. Read this from today's Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html

daver

Death link:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/congestion-pricing-plan-is-dead-assembly-speaker-says/index.html
I don't agree with you Guvna, but I'm like busy and stuff.

guvna

Every little bit helps in reducing carbon emissions, but I think this was ill conceived, and was focused more on making manhattan easier for the rich to navigate by car than on reducing global warming.

capt. planet

Guvna wrote: Does anyone know why they went with $8? I reckon that most of the reaction against it was due to the amount being asked. On the one hand, a large fee would seemingly discourage driving (which is the goal of the program), while a smaller fee wouldve made it more likely to get passage. I am surprised that they didnt go with a $3/4 fee to get started, then increase it after 1 or 2 years.

Anyway, it is dead, and not a moment too soon. I argued above that a better policy would focus on stronger emissions standards, and maybe mandating hybrids (both really cry out for Federal standards), but it seems even such a wide-ranging approach wouldnt be enough. Read this from today's Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html

Well, it's not dead, it's just delayed. Global warming isn't going away and neither are high oil prices.

All of the proposals thrown own here are simply DOA. Car pooling has never worked because people drive cars to AVOID their neighbors not be with them. And emission controls and mandatory mileage standards are federal mandates that are not under the jurisdiction of the city.

Once you cut through all of the objections stoked by money from the auto lobbyists, the car companies, the oil companies, narrowly focused drivers and the AAA, you'll find that older more mature cities such as London and Hong Kong know that using pricing to restrict access to central cities is simply the best way to go. Those who really value the experience of driving their own car in these critical areas will pay for it. Those who don't, won't. And all of this talk of classism and playing off the poor against the wealthy is just working to the advantage of the auto lobby. What the poor really need is convenient, efficient mass transit and forcing those who insist on driving their cars into key areas of the city will help pay for the necessary upgrades to make this happen.

See ya' in a few.

eggcream

Capt. Planet wrote: [quote=Guvna]Does anyone know why they went with $8? I reckon that most of the reaction against it was due to the amount being asked. On the one hand, a large fee would seemingly discourage driving (which is the goal of the program), while a smaller fee wouldve made it more likely to get passage. I am surprised that they didnt go with a $3/4 fee to get started, then increase it after 1 or 2 years.

Anyway, it is dead, and not a moment too soon. I argued above that a better policy would focus on stronger emissions standards, and maybe mandating hybrids (both really cry out for Federal standards), but it seems even such a wide-ranging approach wouldnt be enough. Read this from today's Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html

Well, it's not dead, it's just delayed. Global warming isn't going away and neither are high oil prices.

All of the proposals thrown own here are simply DOA. Car pooling has never worked because people drive cars to AVOID their neighbors not be with them. And emission controls and mandatory mileage standards are federal mandates that are not under the jurisdiction of the city.

Once you cut through all of the objections stoked by money from the auto lobbyists, the car companies, the oil companies, narrowly focused drivers and the AAA, you'll find that older more mature cities such as London and Hong Kong know that using pricing to restrict access to central cities is simply the best way to go. Those who really value the experience of driving their own car in these critical areas will pay for it. Those who don't, won't. And all of this talk of classism and playing off the poor against the wealthy is just working to the advantage of the auto lobby. What the poor really need is convenient, efficient mass transit and forcing those who insist on driving their cars into key areas of the city will help pay for the necessary upgrades to make this happen.

See ya' in a few.

Who are you to tell the poor what they really need? What the poor really need is for liberals to stop telling them what they really need. This was a blatant tax and surprisingly enough it didn't pass in liberal NY. Never thought I'd say it but hooray for Sheldon.

Most people drive their cars because they have the choice to do so, because of their jobs or coming in from other states.

I didn't know the auto lobbyists and the oil companies were involved in this decision. Please show me where.

Not everyone buys into the global warming alarmists theories and high oil prices would come down if the environmental wackos would allow drilling here and have more refineries built. Foreign countries are cashing in on profits that we could be reaping.

alafairnadia

eggcream wrote: Who are you to tell the poor what they really need? What the poor really need is for liberals to stop telling them what they really need. This was a blatant tax and surprisingly enough it didn't pass in liberal NY. Never thought I'd say it but hooray for Sheldon.

Most people drive their cars because they have the choice to do so, because of their jobs or coming in from other states.

I didn't know the auto lobbyists and the oil companies were involved in this decision. Please show me where.

Not everyone buys into the global warming alarmists theories and high oil prices would come down if the environmental wackos would allow drilling here and have more refineries built. Foreign countries are cashing in on profits that we could be reaping.

do you know how much insurance and gas and parking cost in this town? no one driving is truly poor. they may be bleeding cash, but they are NOT truly poor. there are tons of awesome options in the universe for folks who can't afford their cars: express buses, bus to subway, subway to subway, carpooling, LIRR, PATH, etc. I'd really like to meet someone totally destitute who is also paying insurance, gas and parking for their totally necessary car. total fuckin' b.s.

capt. planet

"Capt. Planet" wrote: [quote=Guvna]
Not everyone buys into the global warming alarmists theories and high oil prices would come down if the environmental wackos would allow drilling here and have more refineries built. Foreign countries are cashing in on profits that we could be reaping.

Not everyone buys into the "global warming" whooey. Nope, just people who read newspapers, books, magazines or watch TV or listen to the radio. The rest of the folks, who live in caves or under bridges, are to addicted to notice.

US oil production peaked in the early 70's. Despite that, US oil companies keep searching and have spent billions of dollars in the vain quest. Hey, it's what they do. Nobody wants to hear we're running out of oil, so they don't. But soon the prices of gasoline will be just too obvious for even the most fuzzy headed not to notice that something is up. And those who excercise their "free choice" to commune 100 miles each way to work in their SUV's are going to be screwed. And nobody will be dancing, not even on the graves of dead Iraqis who died to feed our oil habit.

anonymous

Subject: CONGESTION PRICING

[/b]Well, Bloomberg' scandalous attempt to launder and extort more money from hard working New Yorkers failed miserably. Yes, that is what this is REALLY about. Wake up people!

1.) Those "in favor" of this obscene tax either don't drive, or do drive and want to save valuable time in hopes that the traffic will be less severe. What makes you think that a GUARANTEE traffic free road is in your future? Did you ever think there might be just AS MUCH traffic if not more? Then what?...I bet you'd feel like a real jack ass pissing away $8 with no change in the road conditions at all.

2.) Why is Bloomberg a billionaire? Here's a better question, why has Bloomberg REMAINED a billionaire? Trust me on this one (and I hope the IRS is reading this). The money collected from this tax was allegedly going to be used for MASS TRANSIT improvements. Yeah, um, ok. We've been hearing that for 25 years. Just last week, Bloomberg raised tolls and then announced, "Oh, sorry, we can't make improvements, deficit here". Bloomberg is pocketing the proceeds in some fashion to keep his savings accounts in the 7 digit range. Sounds far-fetched? Hmmm, you don't know just how corrupt and greedy American politicians are.

3.) Helping the environment? LOL, ay please. On a daily basis, there are 7000 airplanes in the air. No one addresses the pollution caused by these aircrafts but suddenly the TINY TINY island of Manhattan is going to SAVE THE WORLD because Abdul Shakeem Badu and Lakeesha Jenkins won't be driving their mini van or Acura. The whole "help the environment" argument just displays how damn stupid Americans really are.

4.) The solution! I'll tell you. The reason there is so much traffic is

a.) Most people do not know how to properly drive and should be required to take a state driving test every 2 years. Too many foreigners who don't have a clue. These people not only cause accidents, but causes competent drivers to loose valuable time stuck in traffic.

b.) Delivery trucks ARE the main reason for the traffic. You see, in Europe, all deliveries are made at night, between 11pm-7am. That way, the roads are free during working hours for buses and commuters. Duh? Has no one thought of this simple solution????? Apparently not, after all, Bloomberg these days only thinks about how he can keep his own wallet on a diet.

anonymous

wow! couldnt have said it any better that this!!!