Congestion Pricing 2.0

whynot_31

After their defeat during the Bloomberg Administration, advocates of congestion pricing have regrouped.

This time, it looks like their pitch will be made with the proponents of the MTA and Vision Zero:

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150210/BLOGS04/150209833/optimism-grows-for-new-improved-congestion-pricing-plan

...and I think they will make some progress.

pragmaticguy

I don't drive in Manhattan much but if this would result in lower tolls at the VZ then I'm all for it but I doubt it will. There's already peak and off peak tolls on the bridges and fares on the LIRR so why not do the same for buses and trains in the city. Back in the 70s the MTA in the city had a half fare program for trains and buses on Sundays and still it wasn't a big hit. But the MTA knows that people in the city have nowhere else to turn so it's not offered anymore. And if they have to mail bills to everyone without EZ Pass they'll keep the post office in business because are they going to mail one bill showing all the times you traveled in a given time period or one for each day that you go over a bridge. I can see the actual revenue generated much less than what it's claimed it will be.

whynot_31

I'd be willing to pay for East River tolls if it meant less traffic.

To what degree do we believe that the demand for car travel into Manhattan is price elastic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

morralkan

One of the major perks of living in NYC is the ability to access healthcare at some of the finest hospitals in the world. If you are a patient at one of these hospitals, chances are pretty decent that you will be going there by car (also including taxis) since you may not be in the best of shape to begin with. This is particularly the case for cancer patients, who may be undergoing radiation or chemo. Similarly for those with broken limbs, operations, etc, Should they also be taxed to getting there or back home in addition to their other woes? Their families for wanting to visit them? 

In any case, I don't see how this would greatly reduce traffic since DeBlasio and Polly T. seem intent on narrowing streets and, aside from the eventual (and really long range!) opening of the 2nd Ave subway, the MTA has not added bus or subway capacity to the system. 

pheightsresident

I wouldn't be so opposed to this if I actually thought it would lead to fewer traffic jams. But I don't believe it will. Even if fewer cars are using the ER bridges as a result of this plan, enough cars will still use them to cause traffic jams, which will be amplified by the wait of having to pay tolls. I think this could actually add to traffic jams. I'm not willing to support another cash cow for the City due to financial mismanagement by agencies like the MTA. 

newguy88

In London and every other city there has been a noticeable decrease in private car and mass transit trips with congestion pricing. Sadly, this isn't real congestion pricing since the East River bridges are untolled. A well written Streetsblog article about congestion pricing and its possible effects in NYC. In this picture the red dots show a decrease in car trips and blue show an increase. 

@morralkan The vast majority of car trips from NJ and upstate aren't going to hospitals. Most are probably going to park in private garages as their owners go to work or to shop or see shows. Which means their driving driving on top of mass transit. Also street narrowing isn't done to reduce traffic capacity. It's done to reduce speed and and reduce the danger posed by speeding cars to cyclists and pedestrians. Of course we are all very well aware of your extreme anti-pedestrian and anti-cyclist views. 

@pheighsresident Most of the MTA's financial troubles aren't due to their own negligence but to years of Albany raiding their coffers and underfunding them. Cars due significant damage to roads, tunnels and bridges through wear and tear and I have no trouble with the idea of them funding that upkeep and the city. Driving a car is a privilege and when done of comparatively good masstransit it becomes a luxury. As we all know luxuries intrinsically cost more. If people have trouble paying these costs or are unwilling to then they are more then welcome to help fund the MTA by using it.

@whynot_31 If congestion pricing is fully instituted will see comparable results to 
London if not larger reductions in car traffic.

Change is coming people. You can cry and moan about it on the Brooklynian but it is coming nonetheless. You can no more fight against the changing transportation modes then you can fight against rising and falling of the tide.

morralkan

I'm also very aware of your extremist anti-vehicular traffic views. It's unrealistic to think NYC will got back to the horse-and-buggy days. This is a major city and needs to accommodate vehicular traffic. Funny, though, that you should think this of me since I don't drive, use mass transit almost all the time, and ride my bike fairly extensively also. I'm just not a wimp; I've been riding a bike here in Brooklyn for the past 45 years without bike lanes and without an accident. I avoid bike lanes if at all possible. I do not, however, think that cyclists are some sort of saints.

As to all that vehicular traffic, don't you think that all those drivers working in the city, using garages, going to shows, shopping, add something to the NYC economy that most cyclists do not? As to those people who DO go to hospitals, I'm sure they appreciate your cavalier attitude toward their special needs. 

One thing you did not address is the lack of virtually any increase in the capacity/frequency of public transportation options. Maybe we will need "stuffers" like they have in Tokyo? As to London, I find it a hellhole of a city: extremely expensive, horrible food, and falling apart. 

whynot_31

"@whynot_31 If congestion pricing is fully instituted will see comparable results to London if not larger reductions in car traffic."

@newguy88 -
I can't imagine we would be able to fully institute congestion pricing here in the US unless we overcome political gridlock, and grant the government greater powers to use emminent domain to get the right-of-ways required to create better and more public transportation.

...instead, I suspect the current plan will merely toll the east river and allow MTA to provide its current levels of service in light of shrinking federal dollars.

pheightsresident

newguy88: I don't know. London traffic is still terrible in and around the city center . . . that is unless you're on a bus using the designated bus lanes (I was just there last month for a little while and have family who live in the city who tell me the horror I experienced is not out of the norm). It seems to be that congestion pricing made an absolutely horrendous situation merely terrible, which isn't worth it to me. The thing about London is that it has generally narrower (much narrower) streets than cities like NY, which only adds to traffic problems there. 

And the MTA has plenty of blame at its feet. Working on and lobbying for new projects that aren't absolutely necessary and that it can't afford is the very definition of financial mismanagement. Albany doesn't help, but MTA is far from innocent on its own. And motorists already pay their share from higher than average title fees and gasoline taxes. Not to mention the absurd bridge and tunnel fees that motorists already pay to get in and around the city (from the GBW to the Verrazano Bridge tolls). These fees/tolls are way more than is necessary to maintain and pay for those bridges (not to mention the Verrazano is already paid for . . . the GWB probably is as well). I'm not for another slush fund that, at best, is only going to marginally improve traffic and, at worst, is actually going to see traffic problems increase. 

newguy88

@pheightsresident

Where in London where you? Could you find some references to back your claims up? Because everything you just said flies in the face of ALL literally ALL of the research done on congestion pricing and its effects in London. I was there for three weeks a couple years ago and the buses and tubes were marvelous.

Could you also find some links that support  your claims about the MTA as well? The tolls also help support mass transit here. Again driving in this city is a luxury and not a constitutional right. We pay more for luxuries. I'm looking forward to seeing your references. 

@morralkan Ah here we go back to your thoroughly stupid and silly claims that I'm anti-car. Find me one quote where I ever siad I wanted to ban cars or drop it already. The horse and buggy thing is original. However, its just as ridiculous and reactionary as your anti-car thing. 

I'm not "cavalier" towards medical needs not even a little bit. But they make up a minority a very small minority of all car trips.  Are you really prepared to claim otherwise? Nowhere do I say they will be forbidden from driving to the hospital again find me a freaking quote.

Are you suggesting cyclists don't add money to the NYC economy? This is a very strange comment for a "cyclist" I'd wager that a cyclist living in NYC will spend more money annually than someone who drives in from out of town semi-regularly. If you were a cyclist you would know this.

As for that claim... its a very suspect one to say the least. This is the first time you have ever mentioned this and I just went through many of your posts on the Vision Zero thread.  Not once do you ever make this claim. In fact you argue against EVERY single part of Vision Zero, SBS and other transit improvements. You have jumped at every opportunity to defend drivers and have engaged in extreme victim blaming. Any cyclists who rides regularly knows the dangers that cars can possess as well as how aggressively drivers frequently drive. In short they realize the importance of Vision Zero and traffic regulation. If you really have been riding for 45 years you must of known several fellow cyclists who have been hit and probably one who has been killed.  Which means you would not so readily defend aggressive driving. Your attacks on congestion pricing is yet more evidence that your claims of cycling are false. Since you have taken as such an anti-cyclist stance, a claim you have until now failed to refute, I'm calling bullshit on you being a cyclists of 45 years. But please provide me with some proof to the contrary.  You're right you don't think cyclists are saints. Far from it you think we deserve to be hit and killed otherwise you'd take part in the safe street movement. 

"I find it a hellhole of a city: extremely expensive, horrible food, and falling apart." Well you're the first person I've ever heard that has said this. first person EVER!  When did you go last if ever? I last went three years ago and found the food good, the city very much cleaner than NYC, the mass transit much more efficient and yes it is very expensive.

There is a documented correlation between an increase in ridership, an increase in funding and improvements in mass transit.  Congestion pricing always increases mass transit rides. Please re-read my Streetsblog link.

newguy88

@whynot_31 The calls for better mass transit and traffic regulation are louder and only getting louder everyday. People like morralkan and pheightsresidents are now in the minority in NYC and their voices for regressive transportation policy are getting softer all the time. The safe streets and mass transit movements are about to get significant political force behind them. Albany if it wishes to keep NYC will have to enact transit reform in a meaningful way. Keep in mind the voices for secession from NYS are starting to pop up too these days. Does this mean meaningful change will come tomorrow? No but it will come and sooner than many would think.

whynot_31

I am certainly seeing more support for better public transportation as cities become the destinations of choice for greater numbers of young, affluent people.

A big part of me thinks that the tolling of the east river bridges could create lots of traffic, which could then provide the support necessary to create busways (ie no private vehicles) along major roads such as Flatbush and the bridges.

It should be interesting to watch.

newguy88

It'll be fascinating to watch! I'm not sure it's entirely a youth driven process though. Plenty of older people are getting on board at least in NYC.

I'm not sure tolling the east river would lead to more traffic within in the icty. In fact it would lead to less. However, you are quite correct it will lead to significant improvements in mass transit.  

whynot_31

In order to improve the present transportation system, we may have to break it.

It is a risky bet.

DeBlasio is looking like he may be a one term mayor, so he might be the ideal guy to make the bet. ...he has little to lose.

newguy88

I'm just don't think he has the political capital upstate to make any reform happen. Otherwise he would be the ideal mayor to make changes happen. I'd argue our system in some ways is already broken.

What needs to happen is we must wrestle control of NYC's subway and busses away from the state. I'm not sure how exactly but its something that must happen especially in light of the non-blizzard fiasco. DeBlasio had a chance then to come out swinging but he folded his arms and said "Meh."

pheightsresident

@newguy88: the tube and buses in London are fine (I acknowledged as much about the buses). But, for the most part or at least where physically feasible, buses have their own dedicated lane, which, while making for smoother and less congested trips for those riding the buses, actually threaten to make regular vehicular traffic worse as private cars have one less lane to access. In a city like London where wide, multi-lane roads seem to be a rarity, this is even more crushing. At the end of the day, having fewer vehicles on the road, when you have taken away a lane to make way for buses, and when you have a large number of cars on narrow roads, doesn't mean no more terrible traffic; all it means is fewer cars. And from my experience, and from talking to my uncle and family, things are still terrible.

Note, even after this congestion pricing scheme, the average Londoner loses more time per year (83 hours) than the average New Yorker loses (54 hours). Source: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jul/07/100-most-congested-cities-europe-north-america

In fact, based on that list of 100 Most Congested Cities in Europe and North America, Londoners rank number one for most hours lost on the road per year. Again, from my experience in London and in talking with my family, I believe this. 

Congestion pricing may have improved things in London, but, from my experience, things are still terrible. I'm not advocating paying for such an outcome here in NY. 

And I stayed in Bermondsey (less than 10 minute's walk from London Bridge Tube). My uncle picked me up from the airport (Gatwick), and it took us 3 hours to drive to my hotel! 3 hours, most of which was spent in London proper! The trip should have taken an hour. And my family lives in Croydon.

As for the Verrazano Bridge, according to Assemblywoman Malliotakis, the bridge makes a $250 million profit each year. That's profit, after expenses are upkeep at paid: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/552303-brooklyn-officials-call-for-verrazano-bridge-toll-discount-for-brooklynites/

Here's a snapshot of the daily paying traffic (separated into EZ Pass and cash users): https://data.ny.gov/Transportation/Daily-Traffic-on-Verrazano-Narrows-Bridge-Time-Lin/y4au-yfbp

The Verrazano cost about $2.43 billion (in present dollars). It's long been a highly trafficked and tolled bridge. If after over 50 years and many, many years of outrageous profits its not paid for, that's criminal! Note, I thought the articles (such as http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/nyregion/as-verrazano-bridge-turns-50-a-myth-about-its-tolls-persists.html) debunking the myths that the Verrazano would stop tolling once it was paid for suggested that the bridge was paid for (why else write the article?), but, upon further review, it doesn't suggest that its paid for or that its not paid for. In any event, my main point is that the MTA/State are cleaning up on tolls on this bridge. Again, a $250 million profit! Still, I assume the Verrazano is paid for as the only articles I've seen on expenses mention paying for maintenance and operation costs, not for paying down construction bonds, which, if they were still outstanding, would presumably account for a significant portion of expenses (see, for instance, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-polititians-mta-toll-hike-plans-article-1.2020957). 

And an increase in funding and improvements may very well increase mass transit ridership and profit, but, at the end of the day, this isn't something that the MTA naturally needs to make the system workable. MTA is spending many billions of dollars expanding subway access in an area that got along just fine without it (in addition to spending money to build the "new" Fulton Street station). This is money that the MTA doesn't have, and money that is now being used as an excuse to raise fares once again.  

The same goes for congestion pricing. Congestion pricing may very well lead to greater public transportation usage (I'd believe that's the case), but its not necessarily going to make vehicular traffic a breeze (as I've shown for London, that's far from the case). 

whynot_31

I think we are off base if we are measuring how easy it is for vehicles to move.

We should be measuring how quickly the various localities move people and goods.

Similar, but different.

BTW, the MTA is busy stating how NYC desperately needs it's capital plan: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150211/BLOGS04/150219964/failing-to-fund-mta-would-be-bad-for-biz-study

morralkan

Really? You've never heard that London has bad food. That is absolutely hilarious. You must be devoid of taste buds.

You have nothing to contribute but diatribes against anyone who doesn't share your point of view. I've successfully biked throughout Brooklyn and much of Queens with no incident. And no, I have not met anyone who has been injured by a car. Perhaps I just know smarter people and cyclists.

As to congestion pricing leading to better transportation, I greatly doubt that will happen. Where is the increase in buses? in train frequency? Those drivers that you decry spend a LOT of money in the city, much more than the cyclists who certainly are not going to Broadway shows, out to concerts, to restaurants, and shopping in higher end stores. If you had read carefully, you would have noted that I did NOT say that patients would be denied auto access to the city, but that they would instead be TAXED for the privilege of such access. Who in the world says that a driver, by virtue of being a drive, must be aggressive. Don't be a douche.

pheightsresident

@whynot_31: I see your point, but still believe that if one of the rationales for congestion pricing (albeit one of several rationales) is that its going to help improve traffic, we need to discuss what this actually entails. If congestion pricing is going to reduce vehicular traffic, but, whether due to a back jam of traffic on many streets because of tolls or other means, and due to the fact that there will still be a considerable number of cars on the road, there's still a very real possibility that traffic will still be bad, we need to b clear about that. I think politicians need to be straight with us on what congestion pricing will mean to the average person on the road in terms of time traveled as they make it seem, dubiously citing London as an example, that congestion pricing makes things great. Sure, there are going to be benefits in terms of increased ridership on public transportation, but, as long as the MTA continues to take on massive projects it can't afford, that's not really going to mean relief for riders as far as fares go. 

whynot_31

If I was going to cite an example of where Congestion Pricing has worked, I'd use Signapore as my example.

In terms of NYC politicians lying to us, I think they know that the future is SBS/BRT but they can't presently find a way to implement it, and it doesn't have much popular support.

[BTW, I think the only people who think London has good food are the Irish.]

newguy88

@morralkan At this point it is obvious to all you are completely full of it. 

I'm devoid of taste buds? Because you didn't like their food and I disagree... hmm a very troll like comment. OF course I've heard that stereotype and I found it to be yet another false stereotype. When I was in London I had some of the best Italian and Indian food of my life. 

"You have nothing to contribute but diatribes against anyone who doesn't share your point of view. " I have again and again provided factual evidence supporting my arguments. You have yet to do the same. Have you read that article I posted yet? Or would this take away from attacking other posters?

We tax privileges that cause damage please see cigarettes and alcohol. Thats how it works. Thats how we fund the roads they drive on. I'm sorry but its called reality. 

"And no, I have not met anyone who has been injured by a car. " You are either lying or are just again full of it. No one can live in Brooklyn for 45 years -and cycle no less- and not know anyone who has been hit by a car. I've only been riding for three years and know 2 people plus myself who have been hit through no fault of our own. But yes please  continue your victim blaming. Do you blame mugging victims and rape victims? Or just traffic violence victims?

"Perhaps I just know smarter people and cyclists." Could you possibly be any more of a troll? Perhaps you want to explain to my friend why that car hit him and its all his fault?

Yet you have the gall to call me a douche. I never said all drivers were aggressive. Stop putting freaking words in my mouth.  

Great ridership leads to more money for the MTA which leads to better service. Its a very very simple concept. 

whynot_31

Because riders only pay for a portion of the cost of their fare, increased riders do not cause better service.

For the MTA to improve it needs more money, and more power.

Stuffing the trains and buses won't accomplish better service unless it results in some kind of state and federal budget reallocations.

I don't know that it will.

newguy88

@pheighresident

My friends picked me up at Heathrow and rove me to their home in Wimbledon the trip took a little less than an hour by her car. 

That profit goes back to support the MTA's many other endeavours. Such as the LIRR, the buses and the subway. The MTA is actually designed to make a profit. Why is a bridge making a profit a bad thing? Keep in mind through years of deferred maintenance and funding costs the state forced the MTA to get those bonds. Things like ongoing funding raids and Sandy haven't helped matters. Has there been some mismanagement and does the union screw over the MTA? Of course but they don't deserve all the attacks you're throwing at them.  

The numbers in The Guardian article only include car trips. Of course in a city like London congestion is going to be heavy. I also think you are misunderstanding the fundamental point of congestion pricing which isn't to decrease car travel times. Instead it is meant to incentivize people to use much more efficient modes of transportation. Also please refrain from using the Post and the Daily News as sources. Both publications have been found to publish widely inaccurate information regularly. 

What areas do you define as the subway as working fine? I travel out of Fulton Street regularly and the 4/5, 2/3 and A/C are often messed up or crowded at night when my classes get out. he G, 7 and L are disasters. My friend who takes the NQ from Astoria says its the worst line he has ever lived off. Yes Fulton Street was a boondoggle. I concede that. While the subway needs improvement the MTA system is still one of the nations best and most efficient. 

@whynot_31 Greater ridership will force the state to increase mass transit funding. You can only stuff so many people in before you need more trains. Congestion pricing will increase ridership which will increase pressure on legislators to increase funding. Politicians are nothing if not creatures of survival and they understand that pissing off the City of NYC as well as those voters who commute by mass transit won't get them reelected. If they don't get this political Darwinism will kick in and they will be replaced by who has grasped this reality. We're already seeing this occur on the community board level.

whynot_31

Newguy wrote: "The MTA is actually designed to make a profit."

Um, no, it is not. Here are some MTA budget basics from the Tri State Transportation Campaign: http://www.tstc.org/101/mta.php

newguy88

Huh, I stand corrected. I think I was confusing expected to pay for itself with profit. 

whynot_31

The MTA needs to replace the federal and state funding it continues to lose.

We should not think that the tolling from the east river bridges will be enough to improve the MTA. ...It won't.

It will merely prevent the system from getting worse, and it will likely cause more crowding because people who used to drive will take the MTA.

That is the dire situation we are facing.

...two bad choices.

newguy88

I disagree with your view. It will in fact be the catalyst that forces the state to improve the MTA less they paralyze the city. In which case the feds would be forced to intervene. 

whynot_31

NYC voters (the ones who presently take the MTA and take bridges) are only allowed so many representatives in Albany.

With the exception of Staten Island, all the reps tend to be pro East River tolls and pro MTA growth. Does it make sense to torture the choir that elects them? ...they can't elect more of them.

If we toll the east river, it should be only be to amount needed for the MTA to break even; it should not be so high that we attempt to "improve" the system. Tolling drivers has real consequences. ...we should only do it to the extent required.

A catalyst would be great, but I'm not sure where we get one of those.

morralkan

Actually, you seem to have proven my point that I know smarter cyclists. Thanks so much! It seems that, given your magnificent 3 years of bike riding experience here, you cannot fathom that someone who has biked here for 45 years and done his best to avoid high traffic routes could possibly have escaped an accident. Maybe I am simply bright enough to know that, in a contest with a 2 ton car or a multi-ton truck/bus, I am sure to be the loser.

It appears from a comment above that I am not the only one to find English food objectionable. I will admit, though, that if one sticks to Indian food and fish and chips in London, one won't be poisoned. As to Italian food, I can only assume you've never been to Italy. 

The more important point is that if one wants and expects better public transportation, then the MTA should be spending dollars trying to figure out, first and foremost, how it would be possible to increase the frequency of train service, particularly during rush hours, but even in the middle of the day. Countdown clocks are a convenience, but increased capacity is a necessity. Decreasing the capacity of city streets to carry traffic only adds increased pressure to the subway system which is overloaded as it stands. It is not feasible to create the broad platforms of the DC system here in NYC, except perhaps on some new lines in the hinterlands of the outer boroughs. 

Building new subway lines in the areas which are already extremely crowded (think 2nd ave line) is really prohibitively expensive and severely disruptive to both residents and business owners along any proposed route. It is important, therefore, to find a way to increase train frequency using, I'm assuming, greater use of computer coordination. Other conveniences would be far far greater deployment of escalators and elevators in the subway system. In Germany, I'm most familiar with Hamburg's subway system, but also with that in Frankfurt. Even as far back as 1968, the Hamburg system had escalators all over the place and I rarely saw one out of service -- and they have really lousy winters there also.

I've used public transport here nearly all of my life and I think it is quite good, certainly within the context of other US systems. Nonetheless, if our public transport system hopes to pull more people out of their cars and onto trains and buses, the improvements have to come before you make driving in the city even more of a misery. I hate to tell you, but even though more people are biking these days, NYC is never going to look like the newsreel film of Paris commuting in the 50's. 

newguy88

@morralkan I'm so sorry that you have nothing better to do then hurl insults at others online. Keep in mind trolling doesn't equal intelligence.  At this point, I have simply nothing more to say to you.

whynot_31

Um, I hope you two make up.

Today, more press came out re: the MTA. To me, it is clear that the goals are to let the public know how dire the situation is, so tolling the bridges looks like the best solution.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150211/BLOGS04/150219964/the-15b-reason-why-your-commute-could-get-worse

Then, paint Albany as evil if they don't support it. It is a tried and true formula.