NYC Congestion Charge

[ryan]

Related to this thread (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42840#post42840). No current news, but i thought I would assemble some past articles on a pet topic.

From MUG (http://www.manhattanusersguide.com/archives_content.php?contentID=010804&category=info):

Congestion Charge
http://www.manhattanusersguide.com/imagesSTATIC/_clear.gif
Originally featured on January 8, 2004

Taking a page from London's Congestion Charge (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cclondon/cc_intro.shtml) program, the Washington nonprofit Eno Transportation Foundation asked the tri-state's Regional Plan Association (http://www.rpa.org/projects/transportation/congestion.html) to look at how a congestion charge – that is, requiring drivers to pay a premium for access to Manhattan's central business area – might work. The plan was presented at a conference this past November. These are some of the main points:

Why do we need it?
At certain times of day, you can expect to cross Midtown at 3 mph, with avenues being only slightly faster. And it's only going to get worse. Since the 1920s these numbers have grown annually by an average of 8,000 vehicles per day. Over 800,000 motor vehicles now roll through the 8.5-square-mile central business area south of 60th Street every weekday. Only 22% pay to enter.

Won't it slow things down getting into the city?
While various forms of congestion pricing have been proposed for decades, one key part of the opposition has been the problems involved in the toll collection process. The development of E-Z Pass (http://www.e-zpassny.com/) and other technologies have made the ability to collect cashless, seamless, and high-speed.

How would it work?
There are four possibilities detailed in the plan:
1. Flat fees on the East River bridges.
2. Variable time-of-day pricing on the ER bridges.
3. London model: A pricing system at 60th Street for 13 daytime hours on weekdays with flat East River tolls during the same time period.
4. Full Variable Pricing: variable time-of-day pricing at all entries, including the East River bridges, MTA crossings, and at 60th Street.

How has it worked in London?
The jury is still out, but thus far the consensus is that congestion pricing has decreased traffic and increased travel time through the central business district. (Other such programs are in use in Melbourne, Toronto, Singapore, among others.) The charge in London is about $8 US, and it is enforced through cameras at the 174 entry points, with the photographs of license plates matched against the pre-paid records. There are heavy fines for non-payment. As a result, traffic volumes are down by 16% and motor vehicle travel times have been substantially reduced.

So what's in it for us?
The primary purpose of congestion pricing is to relieve congestion, not raise revenue. (Even so, all scenarios would generate substantial revenues – about $700 million for each of the first three scenarios, and more than double that for Scenario 4.) With an added charge only on the East River bridges, it would reduce daily entries by over 40,000 vehicles. At the East River bridges traffic would drop by about 25%, likely leading to the virtual elimination of congestion at those crossings, relief on local streets at the approaches to these crossings in Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan, and less traffic on the BQE. Daily transit ridership would climb under all scenarios. So, good for easing congestion, good for the environment, good for the city's coffers.

What about poorer drivers, taxis, and commercial vehicles?
There are genuine issues of equity, though data suggests that Brooklyn and Queens residents who drive to work earn more than non-drivers. Recent studies have shown that tolls on East River bridges in New York would actually impact more affluent individuals and that 66% of those who use free bridges in New York had incomes higher than $50,000. Additionally, only a small proportion of Brooklyn and Queens residents use the East River crossings regularly – one in 35 Brooklynites and one in 44 Queens residents. Employer-supported programs can mitigate negative impacts on lower income workers employed at times when transit options are poor. The plan details ways to handle commercial vehicles and medallion taxis (in London, taxis are exempt from the charge; here, they might not be.)

Though neither simple nor inexpensive to implement, MUG thinks congestion pricing is well worth serious additional study and public discussion. The issue of fairness to less affluent drivers is, to our mind, one that should be moved to the top of the list of considerations. Having said that, we'd like to see the mayor turn his attention from nanny laws to something that could well be a significant quality-of-life improvement.

To learn more, you can read the full report or a summary of it here (http://www.rpa.org/projects/transportation/congestion.html).


The New York Times, April 20, 2003


The Day the Traffic Disappeared


By RANDY KENNEDY


When Queen Elizabeth opened the new City Hall in London last year, some observers compared the building, designed by the architect Norman Foster, to a giant eye. And that is exactly what it looks like -- a glassy postmodern eyeball on the south bank of the Thames, staring across the river at its staid Georgian and Victorian neighbors as if to say, ''Welcome to the 21st century.'' Atop the building is a semicircular penthouse called London's Living Room, walled with windows that offer a commanding view of the city below. The idea behind this room is to offer a place for Londoners to gather, if only through the medium of a television camera, for the kinds of serious, big-family sit-downs that go along with governing a sometimes dysfunctional city of more than seven million -- a city so decentralized, in fact, that until three years ago it never had an elected mayor.


On an unusually bright morning earlier this year, that mayor, Ken Livingstone, strides into the room before a bank of cameras, and with an unusually pleased look on his dour face, announces a coup, one that has eluded dozens of large cities like New York, Los Angeles and Paris. He has not conquered crime or poverty, but he may very well have hobbled an urban enemy seemingly just as invincible: the car. Livingstone has just begun the world's most radical experiment in reclaiming the city from the tyranny of the automobile, a power struggle that cities have been losing in humiliating fashion for more than half a century. Since well before his election, he has been warning Londoners that far too many of them (about 250,000 a day) are trying to drive into far too small a place -- central London -- polluting the air, choking commerce, slowly strangling their own livelihood. To stop them, the mayor decided to draw a line, literally.


The line formed a lopsided oval around eight square miles of the historic inner city. Almost anyone who drove across the line during business hours -- in fact, almost anyone who moved or even parked a car on the street within it after Feb. 17 -- instantly owed the city of London $:5 (about $8) a day for every day it happened. If a driver failed to pay, one of more than 700 vulturelike video cameras perched throughout the zone would capture his license plate number and relay it to a computer, leading to a huge fine. And if the driver declined to pay those fines? The mayor vowed, only half-jokingly, that the city would relentlessly track his car down, clamp it, tow it away and crush it -- ''with or without the driver inside.'' Few would be exempt, not even volunteer social workers, teachers, foreign diplomats or undercover police officers.


The idea behind his assault on automotive freedom was neither new nor very hard to understand. If a finite resource is free, human beings tend to use it all up, regardless of the consequences. If it has a cost, they tend to use it more rationally. Livingstone, a far-left Socialist, won his mayoralty largely on the promise of applying this tough-love theory to London's streets. But in the weeks just before the "congestion charge" began, it sometimes seemed that he was the only one who believed it would work. The newspapers were full of derisive nicknames for it, like ''Ken-gestion'' and ''Carmaggedon.'' Samantha Bond, the actress who plays Miss Moneypenny in the most recent James Bond movies, became the sympathetic face of the opposition, presiding over a protest with hints of civil disobedience at the West End theater where -- somehow fittingly -- ''Les Miserables'' was being staged. Tony Blair's government, which had given London and other British cities permission to levy such traffic charges in the first place, carefully distanced itself from the plan. And the bookmaking firm William Hill, one of London's most able arbiters of public sentiment, began offering 4-to-1 odds that it would fail by the end of the year. (The odds that Livingstone would be out of office before the end of his term were put at 10 to 1.)


On this sunny Tuesday morning, however, it appears that the mayor has beaten at least the first of those odds. The number of cars entering the cordon zone the day before, the first day of the charge, dropped by about 60,000, remarkable even in the context of a school holiday. One automobile group estimated that average speeds in central London had doubled, nothing less than a miracle in the world of road policy. Livingstone, addressing his public in a droopy suit, bright blue tie and a pair of sensible thick-soled walking shoes, declares it ''the best day we've had in traffic flow in living memory'' and reports that he has even taken a call from the government's transport minister, John Spellar, a Labor Party archenemy who had helped to expel Livingstone from the party three years earlier when he launched his renegade mayoral bid.


Livingstone's eyes twinkle as he relates the conversation. ''He said, 'Clearly the devil looks after his own,' and we had a good laugh,'' the mayor says.


When a reporter asks whether the mayor has truly considered the consequences of the scheme failing, especially with his re-election campaign only a year away, Livingstone's nasal Cockney voice, already as affectless as a door buzzer, drops to a full deadpan. ''I never consider my own future when making political decisions,'' he says. He pauses for effect. ''How can you be so cynical?''


As television crews troop out to the balcony to shoot the light traffic wheeling around the Tower of London, a good laugh is had all around the living room.


The exchange, however, goes straight to the heart of cities' tangled history with the automobile -- undoubtedly the most inefficient, and most aggressively defended, means ever conceived for transporting large numbers of people through crowded places. The idea of using a price tag to regulate driving into crowded places has been around for years, but its progress has been slowed by two problems, one big, the other gigantic. The first was simply technical: how would you charge for entry into entire cities or neighborhoods without putting tollbooths everywhere and causing more congestion? That obstacle has now been largely overcome with high-speed electronic tolls, sharpshooter cameras (originally developed for antiterrorism purposes in London) and even the development of satellite tracking of cars.


The gigantic problem is political. Since at least the end of World War II, the battle between cars and cities, a battle over the shape of the city itself, has been an epic mismatch. An oversimplified chronology would read something like this: the car helps to create sprawl; sprawl siphons people and political power away from the hearts of cities; the car returns to attack the city, which was never designed to accommodate so many; the city is forced to transform itself, ceding sidewalks to streets, trolley tracks to traffic lanes, parks to parking lots, whole neighborhoods to expressways.


In the United States, the critic Lewis Mumford foresaw a grim end to the whole process: ''a tomb of concrete roads and ramps covering the dead corpse of a city.'' While the effects have not been quite that dire yet, the imbalance remains tremendous. On a purely human level, it can be witnessed any weekday in Times Square, where armies of angry pedestrians crowd around S.U.V.'s pinioned in crosswalks, the drivers inside easily outnumbered 100 to 1.


But those drivers and the people who profit from them in cities -- principally garage owners, automobile clubs and road builders -- have had tremendous political influence over the years. They have portrayed unfettered access to public tax-supported roads as something like a modern amendment to the rights of man. And while it may be in the long-term interests of drivers to pay for using some roads in order to make them passable again, to put that money into subsidizing more efficient conveyances like trains and buses, city leaders have long viewed administering that corrective as something close to electoral suicide. Even the most crusading anti-car mayors -- like John V. Lindsay in New York, who came within weeks of ordering a Midtown traffic ban in the early 1970's, and Edward I. Koch after him, who came almost as close to imposing tolls on the free East River bridges -- have ultimately backed down or lost their battles.


Though it might seem like a relatively new phenomenon, saturation traffic has existed in many cities for decades, virtually unchanged. Depending on whom you believe, it is incredibly destructive, costing London alone over $300 million a year in lost productivity and revenue just because of congestion in the tiny central portion of the city. (One New York City study in the late 1990's found that traffic problems in Manhattan cost the city as much as $4 billion a year in lost productivity.)


With its mazelike medieval streets, London was a city plagued with congestion long before the car. In his diaries, Samuel Pepys twice recorded being stuck in 17th-century horse-and-buggy jams. When the car came along, the original notion was that such age-old transportation problems could be solved if enough new roads were built to handle cities' needs, a strategy called ''predict and provide.'' But by the 1960's, only a half-century after the car came into common use, economists and traffic planners were starting to notice that new roads seemed only to create more traffic.


By 1977, when the British punk band the Jam recorded ''London Traffic'' (''No one knows the answer/No one seems to care/Take a look at our city/Take the traffic elsewhere''), the average speed of a car in central London was 12 miles an hour, or a little faster than the top running speed of a domestic pig. At the turn of the millennium, more than two decades later, many Londoners could only look back on those congested years with nostalgia. The average speed had dropped to less than nine miles per hour for the first time in modern record-keeping, meaning that car travel through Britain's capital was generally as slow as by coach a century ago.


''We're addicted, really,'' Bev Ramsden, a veteran taxi driver and dispatcher, told me one wet weekday morning, inching down the A4 highway through the gray margins of Hammersmith, nowhere near the most congested part of the city. ''Like addicts, I think we're getting to the point where we're realizing how crazy this is. Someone's got to do something.''


It will probably go down as one of the stranger chapters in the history of traffic policy that the man who finally did something is a former lefty radical (once known as Red Ken) applying conservative free-market ideas. In a way, of course, it all makes complete sense: the congestion charge is classic Robin Hood socialism, taking from the comfortable Londoner commuting by Bentley and giving to the commoner hanging from the strap of a packed double-decker bus. But don't misunderstand. While he is a crusader, Livingstone is also a famously foot-sure career politician as interested as any in re-election. Despite his quip for the television cameras, he did not launch his assault without making a lot of practical calculations about its effect on his future. That morning, in fact, waiting downstairs for him in a cavernous boardroom was a group of strategists who were highly paid to do just that. It was telling that most of these strategists were not from London at all but from a place with much worse traffic problems and a much more treacherous political climate for trying to solve them: New York City. (Average traffic speed: about seven miles per hour, no faster than a running possum.)


Only a few months after his election in the summer of 2000, Livingstone began courting Robert R. Kiley, a former C.I.A. official, business leader and transit expert, who as head of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York in the 1980's was credited with resurrecting the city's graffiti-scarred subway system, now considered one of the best in the world. Kiley, given the new title of London's transport commissioner, brought with him another former top New York transit official, Jay Walder, who had become an expert on road pricing at Harvard and in Singapore, where a smaller but much more costly congestion-charging system in place for more than 25 years has cut car ownership to 1 in 10 city residents.


When Kiley arrived in London, most of the attention focused on his transit credentials and how he would use them to rescue the ailing London Underground, an effort in which he and Livingstone, fighting Blair's government, have been largely unsuccessful. But Kiley told me later that he was equally interested in coming to London because of Livingstone's determination to try to right the relationship between the city and the car. If it worked, Kiley knew, it would be seen as a model around the world, and especially back in New York, where more than 250,000 vehicles crowd into the 8.5-square-mile heart of Manhattan in three hours every morning, roughly the same number that enter the eight square miles of central London over the course of an entire workday.


As the leader of a business alliance in the 1990's, Kiley advocated road pricing for Manhattan, but he received no support from Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose voting base in Queens and Staten Island practically lived in their cars. In many ways London was an interesting parallel, more like New York than any other American city in its atypical transportation landscape. In both cities, as packed as the roads can be, more than 80 percent of workers take some form of mass transit into the central city every weekday morning. In London, as in New York, some drivers are poor. But most tend to have money -- enough to generate political pressure to protect their choice. They are also affluent enough, Kiley points out, to be persuaded to spend a little money to save them something much more valuable: their time.


''We knew all along that the motorist advocates and writers for the newspapers and libertarians and people who are really locked into cars would be critical, but I think the majority of Londoners supported congestion-charging right up to opening day,'' Kiley said later in his office, with a poster of the Brooklyn Bridge behind his desk. ''Would I call it a popular measure? Probably not. But I think that Londoners have long since concluded that someone had to take this dragon on.''


Sitting there that day, as the dragon was being cowed on the streets below, Kiley told me that he had spoken at length about fighting it with another very important potential St. George, one in some ways a lot like Livingstone -- a political outsider who takes the subway to work, who strongly supports the idea of road pricing and who views the prerogatives of driving from a much more jaundiced 21st-century perspective. His name was Michael R. Bloomberg, and he was the mayor of New York City.



Though not mentioned in ''The Power Broker,'' Robert A. Caro's biography of the master road builder Robert Moses, one of the more iconic clashes in the long war between the car and the city took place in New York, with Moses playing a role. He and other planners wanted to slice a highway through the middle of Washington Square Park, the heart of Greenwich Village. It is now hard to believe such a plan was ever seriously proposed, but in 1958 it came close to happening.


At the time, photographed defiantly on the City Hall steps with a giant prop key to lock traffic out of the park, a Tammany Hall leader framed a question that was only then starting to be asked in earnest. Would we, he asked, ''plan and develop our cities in accordance with the needs and wishes of the people who live in them or for the convenience of the vehicles which pass through them?'' The highway through the park was eventually scrapped, but in New York that question, until very recently, has been answered almost always in favor of the passing cars. From 1924 to 1965, car lanes into Manhattan grew from 68 to 120, according to one count, while the number of cars on the street went from 390,000 a day in 1946 (considered intolerable at the time) to more than a million by the end of the 1990's. And that is not because travel has been made more efficient. In fact, it has often been the opposite. In 1907, with trolleys and traffic lanes, the Brooklyn Bridge carried 426,000 people a day; now, with space only for cars, it carries far less than half that number and is often jammed. Convoys of trucks rumble down the decaying streets of Chinatown on their way to New Jersey because tolls on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge would cost them an average of $33 per trip to take the highways that are better designed for them.


Many traffic experts see Bloomberg as the last, best chance -- at least for the foreseeable future -- for anything to change. When he was campaigning, he sought the advice of car skeptics like Kiley. Samuel I. Schwartz, an engineer who worked on East River bridge tolls under both Lindsay and Koch, wrote much of Bloomberg's stridently anti-car campaign platform himself. And Schwartz, who coined the quintessential New York warning ''Don't Even THINK of Parking Here,'' is no moderate on the issue. He advocates charging trucks $50 for using Manhattan as a pass-through and, were it technically possible, $25 a minute for people who want to cruise Fifth Avenue during the height of the holiday season. (''They want to see the Rock Center Christmas tree from their car?'' he says. ''If they do, they should pay for that great privilege.'')


After his election, Bloomberg seemed to be moving in that direction. He decided, in the face of mounting attacks by powerful garage owners, to maintain most of an emergency traffic ban that Giuliani started after the Sept. 11 attacks, preventing single-occupant cars from crossing into much of Manhattan during the morning rush. He has ended the age-old tradition of free Sunday parking in many neighborhoods (including his own, the Upper East Side) and banned turns on some busy crosstown streets -- small changes but ones met with shrieks of protest. His transportation commissioner, Iris Weinshall, even went to London last summer to talk to Kiley and Livingstone about the congestion charge.


But there seems to be a growing sense that Bloomberg could end up among the near-miss mayors on any kind of serious traffic reform. In large part, this is because he has already spent a career's worth of political capital by raising property taxes to fix the city's enormous budget gap, for example, and by banning smoking in bars, a move that would probably get Livingstone sacked in London. Bloomberg and his staff are so nervous about traffic issues that they do not like to talk about them even privately anymore. One city official told me of his particular nightmare: trying to write the speech that Bloomberg would deliver when he cut the ribbons on the new Brooklyn Bridge toll plaza: ''What's he going to say? 'Ladies and gentlemen, these things that've been free for decades and decades. I'm the guy who's going to make you pay for them! Thank you for your support!'''


Kiley says he still believes that Bloomberg could sell a congestion charge, especially in a city where so many take mass transit and only half of the people living at the epicenter of the problem even own cars. ''That's not a bad place to start,'' he says, ''when you know that half the people in Manhattan are going to be with you, almost by definition.''


For all the rest, he adds, ''Bloomberg could use the analogy of, well, look what a difference government has actually made to the subway system. Now we've got to take the next step because we have a subway that's working better, a commuter rail system that's in good shape and lots of room on buses. We've got to really start managing road use. That could be his message.''


Would the message work? New York might not be ready to hear it yet, and the messenger might be killed. But inevitably the city will have to listen, and the brave politician who forces it to come to its senses will be heralded as a visionary. ''Fifth Avenue'' has always had a dull ring to it. What about ''Bloomberg Promenade''?


Randy Kennedy, a reporter for the Metro Section of The Times, writes the Tunnel Vision column about the New York subway system.



http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
NY resistant to congestion charge

By Matthew Wells
for BBC News Online in New York



More than half of New York City's politicians are urging mayor Mike Bloomberg to rule out any attempt to bring in London-style congestion charge.

The plea from city council members based in the two biggest commuter boroughs - Brooklyn and Queens - is based entirely on a recent retail survey by the London Chamber of Commerce.


Just under half of the UK capital's respondents said the £5 ($8) congestion charge had hurt their business, with over a quarter saying that they were considering relocating outside the zone.

Three-quarters of the businesses surveyed, added that the charge had not led to improved productivity -indicating that less congested roads don't necessarily lead to more efficient trade.

The negative impact cited by the chamber of commerce, was gratefully received on this side of the Atlantic, by politicians who are anxious to stop a fiscally-challenged mayor from imposing more tolls and taxes on their voters.

Easing gridlock

Mayor Bloomberg has made his environmental agenda clear with a personal crusade to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, and new daytime traffic flow systems in midtown Manhattan, designed to ease gridlock. But sceptics believe that his championing of fellow mayor Ken Livingstone's congestion strategy has more to do with the need to redress New York's chronic budget deficit problems than anything else.

People are going to drive into Manhattan because they have to - another charge won't keep anyone away
Denise Chimienti, New York commuter

The finance committee chairman and council member for East Queens, David Weprin, led a press conference on the steps of City Hall on Tuesday, calling on the mayor to rule out any attempt to impose a toll on the eastern road bridges into Manhattan, which are currently free to use.

He said: "The London scheme proves that congestion pricing, tolls, or any other fees that discourage people from coming into the city are a bad idea, and need to be taken off the negotiating table permanently."

"What does or doesn't work for London, doesn't necessarily work for New York City," he added.

"You're talking about a much larger business district here...the bad effects it's had on London will be magnified."

'Another burden'

Another council member, Eric Goia, cited his own father as an example of how much a congestion charge could cost the city.

"A big part of my father's flower business is making deliveries to Manhattan every day," he said.

"This is just another tax ramp," he claimed. "Another burden being put on him by city government, saying, it's too expensive for you to do business in this city."

The councillors also invoked the 11 September attacks to support their argument.

Since the destruction of the twin towers and subsequent loss of business activity in lower Manhattan, 100,000 fewer car journeys are being made each day.

"Now is not the time to impose an additional hardship on our businesses," said councilman Weprin.

'A rip-off'

Despite the general popularity of the congestion charge principle in London, New Yorkers taking their lunch break in the City Hall park did not seem to share those environmental concerns.

Seven-million people commute into Manhattan each day to work, overwhelmingly by public transport systems that work better than the creaking Tube or privatised rail networks.

Jay Rosario is a Bronx resident who was "taking care of some business" downtown.

He said: "The idea of another charge for New York drivers is a rip-off. The city's expensive enough already and it'll just hurt the poor-folks."

Mr Rosario has got so fed up with the economic downturn and cost of living in New York, that he is relocating to Pennsylvania.

Denise Chimienti, 26, works for the Manhattan District Attorney's office and commutes in each day from Queens.

"I don't really think there is a congestion problem here," she said.

"People are going to drive into Manhattan because they have to. Another charge won't keep anyone away, though I guess the city could use the money," she added.

'Terrible idea'

A Wall Street banker sunning himself on a park bench, who identified himself simply as Marvin, was more emphatic: "I think it's a terrible idea. Congestion is an urban problem, not a New York problem," he groaned.

"We're much better here than most, and slapping more charges on drivers is just another burden."

The doubters here have a serious point.

New York is a city that is better suited to the automobile, and traffic flows much more freely and efficiently here, than along the largely 18th and 19th century streets of London.

Councilman Goia however, was prepared to accept that the Big Apple could do better.

He said: "When you look at cities like Paris and London and Sydney, they have a far more advanced system of crossing their rivers than we do." He added: "One answer to the congestion problem here would be a fleet of high-speed water taxis, crossing back and forth."

Published: 2003/08/14 23:42:36 GMT

© BBC MMV

[ulyanov]

Can't think of any single thing that would so greatly benefit Manhattan.

[BPC]

I believe congestion pricing would work better in Manhattan than in London, because Manhattan, after all, is an island! Thus, there are only a dozen or so "choke points" through which one can toll all Manhattan-bound traffic, six of which are already tolled. The toll-free East River and Harlem River bridges are an anachronism whose time has passed. Street space in this crowded island is a scarce commodity, and should be priced accordingly. But buses into and out of the city should be made free, with special express lanes, to counetract the time and money burden such tolls would place on persons of lesser means. The rich, however, should be made to pay up.

[ichibans]

There should be no reason for so much gridlock in NYC. If you live in New York you would know. check Gridlock Sam's Idea its great! We have to cut down on truck drivers cutting through Manhattan to save on Toll.

[stache]

Now if we can only put a tax on people who carry enormous bags and packs in a way that doubles their personal space -

[billyblancoNYC]

While I agree in theory with this, you also have to take into account the effects it will have on the economy. Will it cut too much into businesses pockets? Would it make it so that more people and businesses will decide to relocate to the suburbs? NYC is in a constant pricing war with the metro area and other parts of the country. NYC needs to be cheaper for it to grow.

[debris]

It stands to reason that the revenues from the tolls will support either tax cuts or enhanced mass transit (you would hope). Either would more than offset the loss of competitiveness due to the higher cost of driving.

I'll spare you the economic nitty-gritty, but basically, when a good is mispriced (in this case, the correct congestion charge is about $5-10, instead of "free"), it creates a "deadweight loss" to society and economic inefficiency. Essentially, the same thing happens when tariffs are put on international goods, subsidies are given to farmers, etc. A few people win from the subsidy (drivers who don't pay tolls, in this case), but on the whole, society loses from the adverse side effects.

[ryan]

I can't imagine what businesses would leave manhattan b/c of a congestion charge. Not a lot of manufacturing happening in midtown that I know of. Most truck traffic is local deliveries, no? So this would be a marginal increase in already high local delivery charges for all the goods that are consumed in Manhattan. I would venture that most businesses that operate in Manhattan are doing so regardless of cost - that they attracted to the world-class pool of workers, and not nickel and dime savings.

[normaldude]

..Convoys of trucks rumble down the decaying streets of Chinatown on their way to New Jersey because tolls on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge would cost them an average of $33 per trip to take the highways that are better designed for them.

The current Verrazano Narrows Bridge one-way-westbound toll is ridiculous ($8/$9 for cars headed towards Staten Island, $0 when headed towards Brooklyn). I myself have cut through Chinatown to avoid that toll. Either the toll should be split both ways, or done based on congestion pricing.

[Weehawken webcam]

just visit Moscow, which doesn't even make most drivers pay for parking- it has become a nightmare. The reality is that in exchange for paying the congestion charge, drivers should expect to spend less time in traffic- so at a certain income level it makes perfect sense to have a charge. And if you're below that income level, why are you toodling around in Manhattan?

[RM1725]

As a life long Manhattanite and daily driver I can tell you. Cut the number of taxi's by 75%. Traffic would move just fine in NYC without all of the cabs stopping and blocking lanes on major avenues and cross streets. Midtown at mid-day is 50% cabs stopping and blocking lanes. Does anybody remember a few years ago when the cabbies went on strike for a day? It was just like a Sunday morning!. No back-ups, free flowing traffic even in mid-town. I'll bet that's the last time they'll ever strike. All they did was prove how much of a menace they are to everyone's quality of life in the city.

[Native_New_Yorker]

Between the taxis that won't pull over even when they can. The fares who don't care what they block up as long as they get their ride. The fares who don't care how long they block up a street searching for money at their destination (hint....have your money ready when you arrive....then pay, and get out! 5 sec.s max) and the jaywalkers. No wonder NYC in congested. If people just obeyed the rules and were respectful, there would be no gridlock in New York.

[junglizt1210]

London -it works!:cool:

other cities should follow suit!

[ryan]

If people just obeyed the rules and were respectful, there would be no gridlock in New York.

If people obeyed the rules and were respectful... you would not be in New York.

[Native_New_Yorker]

If people obeyed the rules and were respectful... you would not be in New York.

LOL....Okay, you got me on that one.

That's why I put the peddle down when the light turns green. I don't run red lights as a driver. I let people pass on turns. Always nice to kids, mothers/fathers with kids, tourists, and older folk (no matter what they all do). Everyone else I put the fear of "Hood stains" into their heart when they jaywalk. As a pedestrian, I stay out of the way and wave people forward if they're on the move. And I'm mindful of my surroundings.

NYC should have an official "Pop Rude Jaywalkers Day" at least every other month. That would help make this city a better place. If manners don't work, maybe fear of deformity or death will......:-)

I know in the past I've made a few jaywalkers see the light (life flashing in front of their eyes) and made them more considerate and mindful New Yorkers.

[Ninjahedge]

New Yorker, you gotta be careful you know. Being rude about it will not teach everyone. And even though the person crossing may be hurt by you hitting them, you will not necessarily be scott free in this if you decide to "remodel" your hood.

Jaywalkers are not the reason for traffic, as much as you would like to think they are. AAMOF, when people are corralled into small areas to cross streets, it can become more congested than it was with the walkers (Hoboken near the PATH train is a good example).

I do agree that Cabs are one of the biggest contributors to the problem, but in order to address that, we need to go about it in two ways.

First, provide the cabs a place to pick up and drop off their passengers on each street. People complain about them double parking and blocking traffic, but honestly, is there any other place for these guys to go sometimes?

Second, ticket cabbies that refuse to use those areas or follow the laws about safe driving. It is amazing how many of these guys get away with their suicidal European Taxi like driving. I am surprised that more do not ride right up on the sidewalks to get where they need to go.

As for the increased fares? Maybe a sliding scale needs to be applied for any time during the day. If you want to come to work at 6AM, you wont have to pay extra, but if you insist on coming in right when everyone else is, be prepared to pay more.

The only other thing that can be a remedy for this is just a more efficient system of getting everyone to where they need to go. Even getting into Weehawken or Hoboken is difficult by car at rush hour, nevermind NYC. And parking at train stations? Most of them you have to be a resident of the town itself, and then pay a fee on top of it.

Too many hoops to jump through sometimes..... Something has got to be done to unify this and make it easier for people to just leave their cars at home.

[ryan]

Everyone else I put the fear of "Hood stains" into their heart when they jaywalk.

Yes, very respectful...

[Native_New_Yorker]

Yes, very respectful...

My post was tongue-in-cheek of course. But unless you've been driving to work daily for years like I have, you don't understand the the situation. 95% of New Yorkers pay no attention to the "don't walk" signs. They are extremely rude pedestrians and after a while, it gets to you as a driver.

If people are crossing the street when the light is green, they should be taught a lesson. I only hit one guy squarely. He was jaywalking while the light was green on a major avenue, I just barely saw him and stopped, then he gave me the finger, called me a name and took his time crossing. Daring me to hit him. So I hit him. If he had just held up his hand and hustled across, everything would have been fine. Worst he got was a bruise. And a lesson.

Also, I jaywalk from time to time but when I do, I apologize and hustle out of the way. The arrogant ones deserve to get popped.

If you ever drive in NYC you'd see my point of view. I've put up with pedestrian rudeness for years, but not any longer.

[ryan]

Only 14% (http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/22/paul_steely_whi_1.php) of New Yorker's drive, so I don't feel too bad about jaywalking - a lot more streets should be narrowed or shut to traffic so selfish idiots drive less.

I think assault is a great way to teach a lesson.

[Native_New_Yorker]

[quote=Ninjahedge]New Yorker, you gotta be careful you know. Being rude about it will not teach everyone. quote]

I think you have it backwards. The jaywalkers, the arrogant one's at least, are the rude people. So let's get that straight. And if people don't stand up to rudeness (like giving people hell when their cell phones go off at the theater in the middle of a performance) then rude people will never learn and the city will be worse off.

Rudeness always deserves a like response. Be civil or pay!

[Native_New_Yorker]

Only 14% (http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/11/22/paul_steely_whi_1.php) of New Yorker's drive, so I don't feel too bad about jaywalking - a lot more streets should be narrowed or shut to traffic so selfish idiots drive less.

I think assault is a great way to teach a lesson.

So disobeying the law and jaywalking is fine, and driving legally is selfish?

Why is it selfish to drive in the city? And not selfish to walk when the signal says "DON"T WALK"?

And I don't feel to bad about hitting the gas when the light turns green.

[Native_New_Yorker]

I think assault is a great way to teach a lesson.

Assault is driving up on the sidewalk. Hitting someone jaywalking (jaywalking is illegal by the way) is just hitting a jaywalker. Thing is, New Yorker's I.Q.s go down about 40% once they hit the streets. Most walk around like 10 year olds. Dogs, cats, and squirels have better sense than the average NYC pedestrian.

[lofter1]

NYC resident pedestrians are not nearly as bad as visiting pedestrians, who are for the most part totally clueless about how to relate to the sidewalk / crosswalk experience (i.e.: just operate under normal "rules": look both ways (thanks, mom); stay to the right as you proceed; if you're going to stop for whatever then move to the side; etc.).

Jaywalking is completely OK if you follow the "rules" and don't impede traffic.

Plus pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk -- something that seems incomprehensible to many drivers.

[Native_New_Yorker]

NYC resident pedestrians are not nearly as bad as visiting pedestrians, who are for the most part totally clueless about how to relate to the sidewalk / crosswalk experience (i.e.: just operate under normal "rules": look both ways (thanks, mom); stay to the right as you proceed; if you're going to stop for whatever then move to the side; etc.).

Jaywalking is completely OK if you follow the "rules" and don't impede traffic.

Plus pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk -- something that seems incomprehensible to many drivers.

You make a lot of good points. I always give tourists a break. They don't know any better. But also, most tourists obey the signals. The elderly can be slow, and kids are just kids. And anyone who makes an effort to get across is cool also. And jaywalking is fine if you don't impede the traffic and are'nt arrogant about it. It's the arrogant/rude one's who take their time I don't like.

The one's who stare at you like you have a problem because the light is green and the signal says "don't walk". Those are the people I floor it for. Pedestrians do have the right of way. But does that mean people can just stroll across the street whenever they want? There are consequences to that.

Also, I felt the same way when I was a teen and riding my bike around the city. People would stand in the bike lanes and jaywalk all the time. I stayed in the lane and hit anyone in my way. Once a woman stepped out into the crosswalk, I skidded and nearly wiped-out to avoid her, then she told her friend next to her how crazy I was for almost hitting her. I chewed her out politely, but loudly giving her a thorough explaination of why she was rude and the crowd at the cafe nearby gave me a standing ovation. Some people get it, and some people don't. If she had just been the slightest bit contrite about being a jaywalking idiot, I would'nt have said a word. Would have said "no problem" and rode on.

Far to many rude people in this town. And people need to stand up to them.

[Ninjahedge]

New Yorker, you gotta be careful you know. Being rude about it will not teach everyone. quote]

I think you have it backwards. The jaywalkers, the arrogant one's at least, are the rude people. So let's get that straight. And if people don't stand up to rudeness (like giving people hell when their cell phones go off at the theater in the middle of a performance) then rude people will never learn and the city will be worse off.

Rudeness always deserves a like response. Be civil or pay!

NNY, lets put it this way.

If you WANT to be arrested for vehicular assault, and have to pay for a repair bill, and have your insurance jump up, keep being macho and hit people.


It sometimes works much better if you simply have an air horn.

:rolleyes:

[Native_New_Yorker]

[quote=Native_New_Yorker]

NNY, lets put it this way.

If you WANT to be arrested for vehicular assault, and have to pay for a repair bill, and have your insurance jump up, keep being macho and hit people.


It sometimes works much better if you simply have an air horn.

:rolleyes:

Ninja, I'm good enough at it that I don't injure people. (except for that one guy) I just let them know that they should'nt be doing what they are doing. And there's nothing more macho than arrogantly jaywalking and daring people to hit you. I just take em up on the offer. And honking does'nt cut it. They just give you the finger. I give them steel on wheels instead.

There's actually an art to knocking people out of the way without hurting them. Their egos might get hurt however. And they'll think twice the next time about being rude and jaywalking. And running over someone who's illegally jaywalking is NOT vehicular assault. It's an accident. Just like if some kid runs out in front of your car. No charge, no record, no change in insurance.

You obviously don't drive in the city and know nothing about how out of control pedestrians are. You must be one of the arogant ones who see the "DON'T WALK" signal and cross anyway, holding up traffic.

I do drive, and have had enough!

[lofter1]

^ Does that mean you're getting rid of you car? ;)

I used to smack cars (particularly taxis) on the hood / trunk when they would cut into a "WALK" crosswalk, but that hurt too much, So then I took to throwing pennies at them, but realized there could always be a gun in the car -- so now I don't do that anymore, either.

Occassionally, while standing in the middle of a crosswalk and blocking the forward progress of a law-breaking taxi, I will get into a heated discourse on the traffic laws of NYC with the less informed hacks. (But that is mainly for the entertainment of the tourists.)

[Native_New_Yorker]

^ Does that mean you're getting rid of you car? ;)

I used to smack cars (particularly taxis) on the hood / trunk when they would cut into a "WALK" crosswalk, but that hurt too much, So then I took to throwing pennies at them, but realized there could always be a gun in the car -- so now I don't do that anymore, either.

Occassionally, while standing in the middle of a crosswalk and blocking the forward progress of a law-breaking taxi, I will get into a heated discourse on the traffic laws of NYC with the less informed hacks. (But that is mainly for the entertainment of the tourists.)

Keeping the car...LOL need it for work.

And I never hassle any jaywalker who makes an honest attempt to hustle out of the way. As a pedestrian, I obey the signals, don't impede traffic, and keep my head out of my ass on the street so I've never had a run-in with a driver or cyclist in my life.

Except for once when a messenger was riding the wrong way down a street when I had the WALK sign and nearly hit me. Instead of apologizing or even saying nothing, he called me a name, so I kicked him and his bike over! Then I apologized for not looking both ways on a one way street.

[Ninjahedge]

There's actually an art to knocking people out of the way without hurting them.

It is against the law.

What is your name again?

[Native_New_Yorker]

[quote=Native_New_Yorker]

It is against the law.

What is your name again?

Jaywalking, blocking traffic, and not catching taxi's from the curb are against the law. Harmlessly nudging an idiot jaywalker out of the way, whether with my car or hands is'nt illegal.

What is your name again?:)

Thing is, I can't do what I do unless others are breaking the law in the first place. You seem to like to defend jaywalking although it's illegal, anti-social, and rude. Why is that?

[Ninjahedge]

You can't do it PERIOD.

Just because someone is smoking in a restaurant does not give you the right to shoot them.

Hitting someone with a car, regardless of jawalking or not, is still a crime especially if it is done on purpose.

You speak as if you feel validated in your suppositions and actions, but your posts merely say that you are feeling guilty for what you have done and are looking for acceptance of others here on the board.

Good luck!

[Native_New_Yorker]

You can't do it PERIOD.

Just because someone is smoking in a restaurant does not give you the right to shoot them.

Hitting someone with a car, regardless of jawalking or not, is still a crime especially if it is done on purpose.

You speak as if you feel validated in your suppositions and actions, but your posts merely say that you are feeling guilty for what you have done and are looking for acceptance of others here on the board.

Good luck!

I actually can do it and will continue to do so. And where do make the leap from "nudging" rude and idiotic jaywalkers to "shooting" people for smoking?.....LOL Is that the only way you can make your point? Gross exageration?

Thanks for the sophomoric pyscho-babble all the same.

Maybe we'll meet one day. That is, if you're rudely jaywalking.

Obey the rules, be polite on the streets, and stay safe!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Thing is, I can't do what I do unless others are breaking the law in the first place
Jaywalking is a violation of traffic laws. Purposely hitting someone who is jaywalking is a violation of criminal law.

If you should ever have the misfortune of really hurting someone while you are nudging them, suggest the quote above as a defense to your lawyer. Notice the look he gives you.

Let's get this discussion back to the Congestion Charge.

[Native_New_Yorker]

Don't worry Chimp. I'll tell my lawyer I did'nt see em and hit em by "mistake". Secondly, I would'nt stop anyway, never have, never will. Thirdly, they'll just get a lesson, not seriously injured, bruised maybe. And last but not least. If some moron walks out in front of me in the middle of the street and I don't see him/her, that's on them. That idiot's not getting me in trouble for their mistake.

If jaywalkers want to turn the city into a jungle, then so be it.

Problem is most don't drive in NYC and have no idea how big a problem jaywalking is. And don't care either.

On to the congestion problem then. Penalize (traffic impeding) jaywalking and taxi's blocking lanes for starters. Reduce the number of cabs by 50%. Have special reduced tolls at the outer bridges (V. Narrows/GW) for freight so the truckers don't clog-up and trash the infrastructure of the city.

I live and drive in Manhattan and could personally care less if the East river crossings get tolled. I do think it's a little bit elitist that NYC residents from Queens and Brooklyn should have to pay extra for coming into Manhattan. They pay the same taxes and are NYC residents also.

[normaldude]

I live and drive in Manhattan and could personally care less if the East river crossings get tolled. I do think it's a little bit elitist that NYC residents from Queens and Brooklyn should have to pay extra for coming into Manhattan. They pay the same taxes and are NYC residents also.

It's not really elitist. Manhattan residents would have to pay the same tolls for driving into Queens & Brooklyn (since they eventually have to drive back to Manhattan). It's just more time-efficient to collect the toll in one direction. And if you're going to potentially backup traffic with a toll booth, it makes more sense to backup that traffic into less dense areas (NJ, Queens, Brooklyn) than backing it up into the densest place in the country, with limited land (Manhattan).

[Native_New_Yorker]

It's not really elitist. Manhattan residents would have to pay the same tolls for driving into Queens & Brooklyn (since they eventually have to drive back to Manhattan). It's just more time-efficient to collect the toll in one direction. And if you're going to potentially backup traffic with a toll booth, it makes more sense to backup that traffic into less dense areas (NJ, Queens, Brooklyn) than backing it up into the densest place in the country, with limited land (Manhattan).

And just how are they going to put up toll booths in Queens Plaza, Williamburg, and Brooklyn without backing traffic up in those "neighborhoods" for miles?

Call me old fashioned, but I think you should be able to travel the city without have to pay everywhere you go. It'll keep people from Manhattan businesses and vice versa. Yeah everyone hates cars, but they keep the city in business. Like I said. I'm in Manhattan so it does'nt affect me. But I do think it's unfair to the outer Boroughs. They commute into here and work and supply the manufactured goods. Few from Manhattan have to go out there. Except to catch a flight or head to the beach. That's why it's elitist IMHO. Put the tolls on the Manhattan side and see how far this "proposal" gets.

How about $3.50 for a subway ride from Astoria, Williamsburg or Park Slope? But only $2.00 In Manhattan. So the trains and sidewalks won't be so crowded in Midtown Manhattan.



Sounds like the same deal.

[ZippyTheChimp]

If you "live and drive in Manhattan," and presumably work in Manhattan, you are the easiest part of the congestion to fix.

Why do you need to drive in Manhattan?

I have always owned a car since I first got a licence. But since I have lived in Manhattan, I can't remember the last time I took the car from point A to point B in Manhattan.

As for tolls keeping people out of Manhattan and hurting business: The biggest expense, after real estate costs, of doing business in Manhattan is getting deliveries. All those trucks sitting in traffic add to the product cost.

Stating that Manhattan businesses rely on cars for their customers and workers ignores the data.


How about $3.50 for a subway ride from Astoria, Williamsburg or Park Slope? But only $2.00 In Manhattan. So the trains and sidewalks won't be so crowded in Midtown Manhattan.
Not a valid comparison. There is no cheaper alternative than the subway, so the people in Astoria would be stuck paying the $3.50, so you wouldn't be reducing "train and sidewalk" congestion.

That's the point you are missing. It is not about charging people more money to drive in; it's behavior modification -getting the segment of people that drive into Manhattan and don't need to, to stop.

The overall cost of driving is not a deterrent. No matter how high gas prices get, the cost-per mile of commuting by car is mostly transparent to drivers. But tolls or congestion charges stop them in their tracks.

[MrSpice]

Why not let people decide for themselves and not put an additional tax on people in a city that is already outrageously overtaxed? Not to mention that this tax would be much more painful to people who are well-to-do. I don't think income btrakets will matter much :)

[normaldude]

And just how are they going to put up toll booths in Queens Plaza, Williamburg, and Brooklyn without backing traffic up in those "neighborhoods" for miles?

The same way it works for all bridges & tunnels with tolls (Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, Queens-Midtown Tunnel, Brooklyn Battery Tunnel). And the E-Z pass system smooths the transition even more.



Call me old fashioned, but I think you should be able to travel the city without have to pay everywhere you go.

There shouldn't be random tolls everywhere. But in the highest density urban areas, it makes sense to get cars off the roads. People can move around downtown on mass transit trains, but stores need trucks to make deliveries. So congestion pricing can spread traffic out more evenly, encourage park & ride use for the most congested areas, and more truck deliveries can be made, which is a benefit for all businesses and the economy as a whole.

[Native_New_Yorker]

The same way it works for all bridges & tunnels with tolls (Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, Queens-Midtown Tunnel, Brooklyn Battery Tunnel). And the E-Z pass system smooths the transition even more.

Those toll areas are not in residential neighborhoods. BIG difference!



People can move around downtown on mass transit trains

Not everyone in New York lives downtown. From where I am in Manhattan, cab fare home+tip is about $25


If you "live and drive in Manhattan," and presumably work in Manhattan, you are the easiest part of the congestion to fix.

Why do you need to drive in Manhattan?

That's a bit like asking "why don't people take public transportation instead of cabs" Answer: It's convenient for them. Eventhough cabs jam-up much more traffic than do people like me. I don't stop and block lanes 60 times a day. The easiest fix is to eliminate taxis. They contribute more to NYC congestion than anyone else by far!

Also, my work takes me out of the city on a regular basis, I have convenient street parking where I work and where I live. Plus I HATE the subway. Also I like driving. 1 hour to my office by train (standing and getting jostled), or 25 minutes by car (sitting in comfort, calling clients, and listening to music). You make the call!


Not a valid comparison. There is no cheaper alternative than the subway, so the people in Astoria would be stuck paying the $3.50, so you wouldn't be reducing "train and sidewalk" congestion.

Fine. Then make it $6.00.

My big question to everyone out there is: Why are you targeting passenger vehicles. If you don't drive, then street congestion does'nt affect you! If it's the noise, that comes from the deisel trucks and cabbies honking their horns. If it's to dirt and soot, truckers again and buses. If it's the wreckless and aggressive drivers, the cabbies. If it's blocked sidewalks, the delivery trucks. if it's blocked crosswalks, the cabbies picking up fares. My car's clean and quiet and does'nt have ads (visual noise) plastered all over it, and I don't block the sidewalks or cross walks. So what's your beef with people like me? Why not go after the real bad guys?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The debate about the impact of a congestion charge, or any plan to lessen traffic tieups in Manhattan, should be an oblective one, not a matter of personal convenience that dismisses other considerations.

Taxis contribute to congestion, but at least they are a functioning part of the economy while they are in operation. On the other hand, a private car is contibuting nothing to the city except taking up space, wasting gas, and increasing pollution.

It is called loss of productivity.


Fine. Then make it $6.00I'm not sure what your point is here.


My big question to everyone out there is: Why are you targeting passenger vehicles.Because they are the source of the problem that will be least affected by the proposal.

It is a question of numbers. You, the cab, the bus, and the truck all add to the noise, pollution, and congestion. So which one will have the least impact by removing it?

Taking away the cab, bus, or truck will eliminate a service - and a job.

[lofter1]

The easiest fix is to eliminate taxis. They contribute more to NYC congestion than anyone else by far!

My big question to everyone out there is: Why are you targeting passenger vehicles. If you don't drive, then street congestion does'nt affect you! If it's the noise, that comes from the deisel trucks and cabbies honking their horns. ... If it's the wreckless and aggressive drivers, the cabbies.
Gotta give it to you on this one ...

During the cab strike a few years back Manhattan was the most congestion-free / noise-free I had ever experienced in my 25+ years living on a very busy street downtown.

[Native_New_Yorker]

Taxis contribute to congestion, but at least they are a functioning part of the economy while they are in operation. On the other hand, a private car is contibuting nothing to the city except taking up space, wasting gas, and increasing pollution.

Why do you think people drive into the city in the first place? To shop, go to plays, go to dinner, conduct business. We feed meters, we pay for parking garages, pay tickets etc.....AND NOT EVERYONE LIVES DOWNTOWN....

By your logic, recreational biking/roller blading on the streets should be banned as well. Why not? It contributes nothing and worsens congestion.

Quite honestly, all this seems to just sound like sour grapes on the part of people without cars. Get over it.

[Native_New_Yorker]

Gotta give it to you on this one ...

During the cab strike a few years back Manhattan was the most congestion-free / noise-free I had ever experienced in my 25+ years living on a very busy street downtown.

I wrote about that day in an earlier post. Just goes to prove my point. Cabs ARE the biggest menace to quality of life in the city. We should get rid of the taxis.

But then all the downtown types who moan so much about private cars would'nt have the convenience of cabbing around town and blocking up traffic every time they step in or step out. They like the door to door service. They'd rather pick on others even though the cabs are the obvious culprit when it comes to noise, incivility, and congestion in the City.

[ZippyTheChimp]

By your logic, recreational biking/roller blading on the streets should be banned as well. Why not? It contributes nothing and worsens congestion.
That is not a logical conclusion.


Quite honestly, all this seems to just sound like sour grapes on the part of people without cars. Get over itAs i have stated in this thread, I own a car.

And what does where people live have to do with it? In my case, if I was out of the area with my car, I would have to pay a charge just to get home.

[Native_New_Yorker]

That is not a logical conclusion.

As i have stated in this thread, I own a car.

And what does where people live have to do with it? In my case, if I was out of the area with my car, I would have to pay a charge just to get home.

Sorry Zip. Your logic is that cars add to congestion and contribute nothing. Correct? Same for the bikers et al...Correct. How does a recreational biker make a contribution to the city? Other than worsening congestion and ridng on the sidewalk, and running red lights? Please explain this to me.

As for where people live....I my case, I live in Washington Heights. Shopping downtown, hauling bags, or being out late at night costs me a $25-$30 cab ride home. IF they'll take me. My office is in the W. Village. 25 mins by the W. Side Hwy. an hour by train. I also have to travel out of the city for work several times a week. (clients pay for tolls and gas)

Great, you have a car. But I bet it's not convenient for you to take it to work everyday like it is for me. Perhaps that's the difference. Where do you live and where do you work? Just curious.

[ZippyTheChimp]

It is not logical because a recreational biker is not in the mix as a component of the problem.

Do you really think that a rational discussion about what steps can be taken to reduce traffic congestion would involve what do we do about all these bikers clogging the streets?

The fact that some run red lights or ride on the sidewalk is a separate issue.

The fact is that congestion charging seems to be working in London, a city with a similar transportation mix as New York. In none of your posts have you stated reasons why the plan would not work, but seem to be blaming everyone else for the problem except private car drivers.

Nothing can ever get done in a dense city while making everyone happy. A person who likes to drive in Manhattan would have to be less happy on the subway, or pay a little more for happiness.

You would not be charged for driving out of Manhattan.

I live Downtown, and my job takes me to various locations in the area and Midtown. I only drive when I leave Manhattan, and it does not coincide with rush hour(s).

[Native_New_Yorker]

The fact is that congestion charging seems to be working in London, a city with a similar transportation mix as New York. In none of your posts have you stated reasons why the plan would not work, but seem to be blaming everyone else for the problem except private car drivers.

Nothing can ever get done in a dense city while making everyone happy. A person who likes to drive in Manhattan would have to be less happy on the subway, or pay a little more for happiness.

You would not be charged for driving out of Manhattan.

I live Downtown, and my job takes me to various locations in the area and Midtown. I only drive when I leave Manhattan, and it does not coincide with rush hour(s).

Firstly, unlike American cities, European cities were never designed for the automobile. So they're screwed forever when it comes to traffic. And need drastic measures. What we think of as "congestion" here in NYC is a breeze compared to cities like London and Rome. Paris is almost as crazy but they do have Hausman's Boulevards. Do you recall when the taxis went on strike here a few years ago? The most peaceful workday in New York history since the invention of the car.

I think I've made my point. The city had never functioned better. Can you deny this?

Secondly, I think taxis (the real culprit) should be banned, or cut by 90% with a fare tax of 90%. A person who likes to take taxis would have to be less happy on the subway or bus, or pay a lot more for the happiness and street blockages, congestion, and noise they cause.

Ever been in a midtown jam-up at rush hour? 60% of the vehicles are cabs, 10% buses, 15% trucks, and the rest private cars. Taxis pulling over left and right, blocking traffic lanes everywhere. Passenger vehicles don't do this.

Thirdly, I was correct. from where you live and work, it's not convenient for you to drive. How often do you take taxis? And what's your average fare. Surley it's not almost $30 dollars for you to get home after a night out like it is for me.

[ryan]

Firstly, unlike American cities, European cities were never designed for the automobile.

Um, New York was designed before cars were invented. After cars were popular some streets were widened and some expressways were built, but it's hardly an idea environment for personal car transportation. If NYC had been designed for cars, it would be criss-crossed with expressways like 20th century American cities.

So what if you have a seemingly unique situation where it's convenient for you to drive? Millions of other people should fund infrastructure that caters to you?

[Ninjahedge]

Zip, he just does not want to have to pay more cash, so he is downing the suggestion at every turn.

Blaming it on other sources is another thing. Agreed that cabs do contribute to the congestion, but they are also used primarily by NYers to get in and around anyway. they are like a private bus system.

To try to make them more integrated into a smooth traffic solution, you have to look at WHY they are such a problem. The answer is simple. they are not allowed to double park, but where is there a place for them to pick up and drop off passengers? Nowhere. Give them a legal way to do it and they will have the option to do it right.

Secondly, enforcement. You need more street patrols watching for these guys pulling the 4 lane crossover to puck someone up mid-block. If the pick up zones are made and they do not use them, someone has to be there to make them pay for not following the rules.



Now as for congestion charges, that would also work and is a valid solution. If the number of private vehicles were reduced in the city, the traffic would see a noticable change. Not only that, the cabbies IN the city are not 100% responsible for the 40 minute ON AVERAGE delay at the Lincoln Tunnel at Rush Hour.

Making it $$ at rush hour would encourage more people to take mass transit, or simply reschedule their trips. It would also change trucking schedules to try to fit as well.



And lastly, Zip, you are right about the time saved. If you figure one truck driver earning maybe $20 an hour (lets go $15) were to save 15 minutes each way while entering and leaving Manhattan (not to mention the time saved IN manhattan) that would be more than enough to pay for an increase of a few dollars on the toll.

As for the comment about bikers and bladers, he is just being silly, trying to equate statements to something only marginally related and in no way contributary to the actual problem.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Firstly, unlike American cities, European cities were never designed for the automobile.Manhattan street grid was laid out in 1811, long before Henry Ford was born.


Do you recall when the taxis went on strike here a few years ago? The most peaceful workday in New York history since the invention of the car.
You seem to think that banning taxis is the answer. How exactly do you propose to do this? Just put all the drivers out of work? Your solution is no solution, merely pie in the sky. The same with making sure drivers pull over or that pedestrians don't jaywalk; how do you implement that? It's all been tried before, ticket blitzes and don't block the box campaigns. since the city can't afford to constantly monitor the situation. After a few weeks, things go back to normal.

The trick is to find a plan that stands a chance of getting implemented, and would work.

You have never stated whether you think that a congestion plan would work at all, irregardless of what group is most responsible for the problem.

Do you think that a congestion charge would reduce the amount of traffic in Midtown and Downtown Manhattan?


Thirdly, I was correct. from where you live and work, it's not convenient for you to drive. How often do you take taxis? And what's your average fare. Surly it's not almost $30 dollars for you to get home after a night out like it is for me.As i stated, the issue is not about convenience, yours or mine, but about solving a problem.

I hardly ever take cabs, unless we are out late, in which case driving would not be a good option.

You live in Washington Heights and work in the Village. Taking a subway is inconvenient?

Please spare me. You choose to drive because you don't like the subway. You've said so. While you are allowed selfish choices, don't complain when a proposal comes along that might alleviate a problem whille making it a little more difficult for you to make those choices.

[Native_New_Yorker]

Um, New York was designed before cars were invented. After cars were popular some streets were widened and some expressways were built, but it's hardly an idea environment for personal car transportation. If NYC had been designed for cars, it would be criss-crossed with expressways like 20th century American cities.

So what if you have a seemingly unique situation where it's convenient for you to drive? Millions of other people should fund infrastructure that caters to you?

Wrong. Lower Manhattan was built hap-hazardly in the European mode. Un-planned. Above Canal street, a grid was imposed, the topography leveled, the streams and canals filled (why do you think it's called Canal St.? There used to be a bridge there you know) the avenues constructed, all for providing easy integration of the automobile, trolleys, and trains into the framework of the city. Learn your history please before you post. This was one of the first big cities built for the automobile. Manhattan is criss-crossed with broad avenues, major bridges/tunnels, and major cross streets because it was designed for the automobile.

And yes, it is convenient for me to drive. But I'm not the problem. The taxi's are. And my Saab does'nt trash the infrastrusture anywhere near as much as a tourist bus or 18 wheeler does. Plus I'm not making a profit at tax payer expense like the truckers are.

And by the way. If I drive and don't use public transportation, I'm paying for people like you to have it all the same. Or should I get a tax rebate because I don't take public tranportation?

[ZippyTheChimp]

You are the one who need to check history.

The grid was imposed to divide the island up into uniform real estate parcels. It was done long before there were any motor vehicles.

Of all the American car-oriented cities, show me a few with a layout that resembles the Manhattan grid.

[Native_New_Yorker]

As for phasing out the taxis. No more new hack licenses.

As for the toll proposal, all it will do is penalize businesses and New Yorkers from the outer boroughs. Which is why I think it's a prime example of typical Manhattan elitism. People who can afford it will still come. And there's plenty of those. Once the traffic goes down, the wealthier folk will start coming in more often. Then we'll be back to square one. A rich only square one though.

And again I have to ask, if you don't drive regularly, why do you care? And exactly what is the problem for non-drivers? Deisel exhaust? Truck noise? What is it? Street vendors? What?

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT PEOPLE/PEDESTRIANS LIKE YOU? Please just answer that question. Just ONCE!

And please spare me. If you, and others like you, want the selfish choice of taking your cabs and blocking up the city, then consider yourself the major part of the problem and look in the mirror first. Step outside your office, take a good look around, and tell me who's creating gridlock. 95% of the time the answer will be: Some taxi dealing with a fare and cutting off a lane of traffic in the process.

Guess it all depends on who's ox is being gored.

[Native_New_Yorker]

You are the one who need to check history.

The grid was imposed to divide the island up into uniform real estate parcels. It was done long before there were any motor vehicles.

Of all the American car-oriented cities, show me a few with a layout that resembles the Manhattan grid.

You are right about the parceling part. But the planners envisioned the boulevards/avenue as major tranportation atreries in 1811. Streets were widened, Houston St. for example (much later), and rail lines and highways circling the island perimeter.

And NYC's grid is a bit unique because of it's linear shape and because it's an island. With the major avenues running South to North. Most American cities are based on the grid but develope and sprawl into circles with beltways.

I ask again, as a pedestrian, how does any of this affect you?

Still waiting.

P.S. "irregardless" is not a word. "regardless" is and "irrespective" is. Common mistake. No sweat.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Are you reading this stuff?

I stated that I hardly ever take cabs?

Your
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT PEOPLE/PEDESTRIANS LIKE YOU? Please just answer that question. Just ONCE!is again a selfish respnse. Why should I care if it does't affect me.
But to answer your question: Besides the pollution, noise, etc, if I need to take a crosstown bus, it is slower than walking.


As for the toll proposal, all it will do is penalize businesses and New Yorkers from the outer boroughs.The number of people who are in traffic in Manhattan on a given work day is 2% of the total number of people on the island at the time.

If I am only going to inconvenience 2%, then I am going to give the trucks, buses, and cabs a break, because they involve people doing work. I'd target the inconsiderate people that insist on driving when mass transit is available. Since driving is more expensive than mass transit anyway, why should they mind paying more?


A Manhattan Avenue as originally designed
http://massengale.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/fifthavenueolder_1.jpg

Today
http://massengale.typepad.com/./photos/uncategorized/fifthavenuenow.jpg

What's different?

And you haven't answered my question, which is really the point of this thread. It's right there in boldface.

[Native_New_Yorker]

What's different. About 7 million new residents for starters. And a bunch of folks in cabs.

LOL....Noise, pollution? Yeah. Cabs and trucks. Funny. In the recent image I only see trucks, buses, cabs, and livery cars.

Thank you so much for making my point! Not a passenger car in sight.CHECKMATE!

P.S. why not take mass transit instead of a cab? And what to you think drivers are doing in the city anyway? Conducting business, going to plays, restaurants, and contributing dollars to the city. In your mind's eye, they just drive around for kicks.

Get real. Please. And get over it. I don't smell anything other than deisel exhaust from trucks and buses. And your sour grapes for resenting NYC drivers for personal reasons. Most of the midtown traffic on any given day is people like you in cabs. Rented cars.

Like I said before. I'm against the charge. Get rid of the yellow menace instead. Let's gore your ox to "really" fix the problem. Take mass transit instead Zip.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The less obvious but more pertinent difference is the width of the sidewalks.

Car commuters into Manhattan generally have this attitude that they are being taken advantage of, but if if you study the development of the city, it is drivers who have always been always accommodated.
The park drives thru Central and Prospect parks, the cutting up the few plazas that exist like Columbus Circle in the 60s - I could go on and on.

I don't know why you keep suggesting that I get over it, unless you are trying to mask a defensive position and win an argument. I have nothing to get over, and I am not angry about the situation. I just think that it is a relevant issue for the people that live and work in this city.


CHECKMATE!
Maybe you need to get over something.


Take mass transit instead Zip
How many tiimes must I state it.

Your being against the congestion charge is not what I asked.

[ryan]

Wrong... providing easy integration of the automobile, trolleys, and trains into the framework of the city. Learn your history please before you post.

Wow, smart planners there to predict the dominance of automobiles 100 years before their modern invention. You've certainly put me in your place, huh?


And my Saab doesn't trash the infrastructure anywhere near as much as a tourist bus or 18 wheeler does.

This would only be true if buses and trucks were used to transport one person. In reality, just like cities, larger vehicles use less energy and have less impact on infrastructure per capita. Buses are the most efficient, least polluting form of modern transportation. Cars are not the most polluting (airplanes are) but they have a huge per capita impact on infrastructure. Goes back to the selfish part - it's a massively wasteful way to transport a single person.


Most American cities are based on the grid but develope and sprawl into circles with beltways.

Any grid plan is pre-automobile and far from ideal for them (hello - a light every 100 feet). You didn't answer Zippy's simple question - what modern, car-oriented city uses a grid plan?

[Ninjahedge]

How does it effect the people?

How about Bus commuters from places like NJ. Why should they have to wait 45 min to get into the city when a trip at an off hour is 12? Because you have to have your car?

And we are not playing chess here, so stop with the snobbery. As for no passenger cars, yeah, I see that the 4 cars in the foreground are cabs and limos, but what about all the ones stopped at the next light?

Your arguement does not back your statements. If there are few people who drive in the city, what would it matter if they increased the tolls?

Also, take a look at the transit cameras on channel 61 or NJ 12. They show who is coming into the city all the time.

Count how many taxi's and Limos you see there. How would eliminating them substantially reduce the wait time at the chokepoints if they are not even there to begin with?

You seriously need to read up a bit more before posting here. Unlike other boards I have been to, these guys really DO have the resources to find the times, dates, pictures, and other information regarding a subject rather than just saying "well that's the way I heard it!!!"

[NYatKNIGHT]

...the avenues constructed, all for providing easy integration of the automobile, trolleys, and trains into the framework of the city. Learn your history please before you post. This was one of the first big cities built for the automobile. Manhattan is criss-crossed with broad avenues, major bridges/tunnels, and major cross streets because it was designed for the automobile.

What a joke. Really, very humorous. So the city was built with the car in mind, huh? That's pretty pathetic dude.

The "yellow menace" is providing a service. Nobody benefits from your car driving around the city except you.

[Native_New_Yorker]

The less obvious but more pertinent difference is the width of the sidewalks.

Car commuters into Manhattan generally have this attitude that they are being taken advantage of, but if if you study the development of the city, it is drivers who have always been always accommodated.
The park drives thru Central and Prospect parks, the cutting up the few plazas that exist like Columbus Circle in the 60s - I could go on and on.

I don't know why you keep suggesting that I get over it, unless you are trying to mask a defensive position and win an argument. I have nothing to get over, and I am not angry about the situation. I just think that it is a relevant issue for the people that live and work in this city.


Maybe you need to get over something.


How many tiimes must I state it.

Your being against the congestion charge is not what I asked.

Okay then. You have nothing to get over except an unwillingness to accept the automobile as a part of New York-American life and culture. Yeah, the sidewalks were wider and the buildings were mostly 8 stories and under way back when. And the streets were full of horse dung/piss, rats, flies and desease as well. Unlike anything people can imagine now. That was then. It's actually a healthier city now and has been able to grow thanks in part to the automobile. Hustle and bustle = New York. If you want quiet, uncrowded streets and sidewalks, move to the suburbs.

This is New York.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I doubt you have a clue as to how ironic your last sentence is.

I'm dropping out of this one folks. Nothing much going on here.

[Ninjahedge]

Okay then. You have nothing to get over except an unwillingness to accept the automobile as a part of New York-American life and culture.

It is not part of NY life. If you still think it is, then you are not very native.

maybe you should rename yourself NAIEVE New Yorker.....


Yeah, the sidewalks were wider and the buildings were mostly 8 stories and under way back when. And the streets were full of horse dung/piss, rats, flies and desease as well.

Um, where are you pulling this out from? There were street cleaners out. I think you are getting most of your information from watching "gangs of NY" one too many times...


Unlike anything people can imagine now.

Which means Zip and others, that he cannot find ANY modern metropolis that was designed, with cars in mind, with a grid like this.


That was then. It's actually a healthier city now and has been able to grow thanks in part to the automobile.

No, it had nothing to do with the depots and railyards in Queens, NJ and Brooklyn. It was all the Automobile.

AAMOF, it was also the Auto and the building of the roads by Moses that did us SUCH wonders in keeping people in the city and not plunging it into the dark ages.

Like I said, you really need to read up before you start throwing around all this crap.


Hustle and bustle = New York.

Hustle and bustle describes PEDESTRIAN trafic you idiot. Cars do not "Bustle".


If you want quiet, uncrowded streets and sidewalks, move to the suburbs.

Um, so the mayor and all the people, in order to accomodate you and your car, should move away.

Uh huh.


This is New York.

Yes, it is. You seem to keep forgetting that.

[Ninjahedge]

I doubt you have a clue as to how ironic your last sentence is.

I'm dropping out of this one folks. Nothing much going on here.

He does not want to lose the arguement.

By my Rant-O-Meter he is about 3 posts away from calling our mothers names.

[Native_New_Yorker]

What a joke. Really, very humorous. So the city was built with the car in mind, huh? That's pretty pathetic dude.

The "yellow menace" is providing a service. Nobody benefits from your car driving around the city except you.

The streets were laid out with mechanical transportation in mind. Trolleys, trains, then widened for cars. Read and learn.

As for my car....Yeah, so what? I don't benefit from your cab ride either. No one has a right to do anything unless it benefits someone else? Next time you feel like spending a few bucks on a night out, just donate it instead if that's how you feel. You can even send it to me.

Please learn how to think.

[Ninjahedge]

The streets were laid out with mechanical transportation in mind. Trolleys, trains, then widened for cars. Read and learn.

He does. You don't.


As for my car....Yeah, so what? I don't benefit from your cab ride either.

Who says he took a cab ride? And what does that have to do with the OT. You are trying to win the arguement by starting others.


No one has a right to do anything unless it benefits someone else?

No, but if you are going to regulate something, you try to eliminate the things that benefit people the least.

Private auto traffic is one of them. If you need to drive around, you will simply have to pay more.


Next time you feel like spending a few bucks on a night out, just donate it instead if that's how you feel.

Irrelevant.


You can even send it to me.

We are not your parents.


Please learn how to think.

Look up the word "irony".

And while you are at it, also try "Oxymoronic".

[Native_New_Yorker]

It is not part of NY life. If you still think it is, then you are not very native.

maybe you should rename yourself NAIEVE New Yorker.....



Um, where are you pulling this out from? There were street cleaners out. I think you are getting most of your information from watching "gangs of NY" one too many times...



Which means Zip and others, that he cannot find ANY modern metropolis that was designed, with cars in mind, with a grid like this.



No, it had nothing to do with the depots and railyards in Queens, NJ and Brooklyn. It was all the Automobile.

AAMOF, it was also the Auto and the building of the roads by Moses that did us SUCH wonders in keeping people in the city and not plunging it into the dark ages.

Like I said, you really need to read up before you start throwing around all this crap.



Hustle and bustle describes PEDESTRIAN trafic you idiot. Cars do not "Bustle".



Um, so the mayor and all the people, in order to accomodate you and your car, should move away.

Uh huh.



Yes, it is. You seem to keep forgetting that.


Wow......you spent a lot of effort on that one. Congrats.

1. Uptown and Westchester became summer havens for the rich because there was so much desease in the city at the time. Learn your history.

2. Moses did nothing for Manhattan except try to jam a freeway though the Village. Learn your history again. He was credited with developing the outer boroughs and Long Island. Geez......

3. Think hustle and bustle is the whole deal. No place does it better than Times Square or 57th and 5th. Not too active without the traffic.

4. As for my car. Don't be a defensive jerk. Just don't penalize me because I have one and you don't.

[Native_New_Yorker]

He does not want to lose the arguement.

By my Rant-O-Meter he is about 3 posts away from calling our mothers names.

And you are one away.......:)

[NYatKNIGHT]

I'm dropping out of this one folks. Nothing much going on here.

You're right, it ain't worth it.

[Ninjahedge]

Wow......you spent a lot of effort on that one. Congrats.

1. Uptown and Westchester became summer havens for the rich because there was so much desease in the city at the time. Learn your history.

That has nothing to do with the topic, or my response.


2. Moses did nothing for Manhattan except try to jam a freeway though the Village. Learn your history again. He was credited with developing the outer boroughs and Long Island. Geez......

Look up Sarcasm while you are looking up the other two.


3. Think hustle and bustle is the whole deal. No place does it better than Times Square or 57th and 5th. Not too active without the traffic.

Your opinion.


4. As for my car. Don't be a defensive jerk. Just don't penalize me because I have one and you don't.

I have one, and I do not drive it in the city.

Defensive? I am merely invalidating all your assertions and statements. That is not defense, that is merely showing you the light switch before you fall down the stairs.


Again.




You sling about looking to insult people and try to blame all the problems on them instead of dealing with the original question.

How will the increase of the toll as per the "congestion toll" NOT make the city have less traffic?

You just keep saying how other people do it too, and try to validate your own feelings on the matter.

Just like running over pedestrians, your arguements do not make any sense and are useless for proving your position. Either answer the questions stop posting. We do not care how you feel anymore, you have alienated anyone that has an opinion different than yours.

Which is pretty much everyone here.

[Native_New_Yorker]

That has nothing to do with the topic, or my response.



Look up Sarcasm while you are looking up the other two.



Your opinion.



I have one, and I do not drive it in the city.

Defensive? I am merely invalidating all your assertions and statements. That is not defense, that is merely showing you the light switch before you fall down the stairs.


Again.




You sling about looking to insult people and try to blame all the problems on them instead of dealing with the original question.

How will the increase of the toll as per the "congestion toll" NOT make the city have less traffic?

You just keep saying how other people do it too, and try to validate your own feelings on the matter.

Just like running over pedestrians, your arguements do not make any sense and are useless for proving your position. Either answer the questions stop posting. We do not care how you feel anymore, you have alienated anyone that has an opinion different than yours.

Which is pretty much everyone here.

Really don't care if I alienate you or anyone else. My points have always been that...

1. Cabs are the greatest threat to street and pedestrian civility/traffic/congestion in the city.

2. Jaywalking is'nt cool/defensible and drivers should challenge their rudeness and not put up with it in a way that is legal and sends a message.

3. Tolling Manhattan is elitist. I'm in Manhattan and won't have to pay jack. It's just not right to penalize the outer boroughs!

4. Trucks/buses make the most noise and pollute the most.

5. Private drivers are targeted unreasonably. With the parking rules and costs of garages you would know. Nobody drives into the city unless they have to.

6. The day the taxi's went on strike was the last civilized day New Yorkers ever had.

There you have it.

If you want to spew on...........I presented my points. Please stay on point.

P.S. You and the other NY----something guy started the insults. And you continue.

[Native_New_Yorker]

You're right, it ain't worth it.

Checkmate!

If you can't make a point. Bail.

[ryan]

4. Trucks/buses make the most noise and pollute the most.

Not to imply that your other points are valid or convincing, but this in particular is just not true. Buses are the the least polluting form of modern transportation per person transported. I don't see an alternative to delivery trucks in manhattan, but I would assume that they produce less pollution than if every delivery was made my private car...

"Yellow menance" had me convinced it was all a joke. The list... not so much.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Checkmate!

If you can't make a point. Bail.

You have forced me to return to this thread, as a moderator. Your snide remark was directed at another moderator, a stupid move for someone with the weight of three days on this forum.

We don't set out to antagonize each other, and while strong opinions sometimes lead to heated exchanges, the situation is usually self-correcting. Your last post served no purpose other than contempt for someone who has left the discussion.

If you have nothing else to add this topic, move on to something else.

[Ninjahedge]

Really don't care if I alienate you or anyone else. My points have always been that...

1. Cabs are the greatest threat to street and pedestrian civility/traffic/congestion in the city.

2. Jaywalking isn't cool/defensible and drivers should challenge their rudeness and not put up with it in a way that is legal and sends a message.

3. Tolling Manhattan is elitist. I'm in Manhattan and won't have to pay jack. It's just not right to penalize the outer boroughs!

4. Trucks/buses make the most noise and pollute the most.

5. Private drivers are targeted unreasonably. With the parking rules and costs of garages you would know. Nobody drives into the city unless they have to.

6. The day the taxi's went on strike was the last civilized day New Yorkers ever had.

There you have it.

If you want to spew on...........I presented my points. Please stay on point.

P.S. You and the other NY----something guy started the insults. And you continue.

1. They still serve more people than 1, being you. They also do not make it so that your car does not contribute to congestion. They are also paying jobs and the elimination of them is not a feasible solution.

If we killed everyone in NYC it would eliminate the congestion problem as well, but that is not a feasible solution.

2. "Challenge" is different than "assault". You seem to have the two confused.

Either you are pissed at people "inconveniencing" you by blocking your way and you are venting here, or you are indeed a criminal that has hit someone and run. If you think you are totally validated, please give us all here more details and we will be happy to let the police know of your valid fight for drivers rights.

3. Toling Manhattan is not elitist. If you make money here, you pay money here. Using one of your own phrases, if you do not like it, move.

4. Trucks and busses make the most noise and pollute the most because they carry the most and are the biggest driving force for the various economic outlets in the city.

If you were to make a congestion charge that would reduce the traffic delays that these companies face while delivering objects it would more than offset a substantial hike in fares. The fact that there are fares now does not stop any of them, we see noone deciding on using the TZB to get to Brooklyn. We have not hit a balance point that will be optimal for traffic flow.

5. Targeted unnecessarily? So it is your god given right to drive? How long you been in NYC? You really do not sound like a Native with that attitude. I have to say you are the first person I have ever heard in all of NYC that claims he has a right to own a car in the city.

Not that people do not own them, but most do not feel "sullied" by "lowering themselves" into taking mass transit. You condemn the tolls for being elitist, but then insist on driving yourself around NYC instead of using mass transit. You contradict yourself in this argument.

6. You are slinging words now. The day the Taxi's went on strike, a lot of people just grinned and bared it. It also has nothing to do with the proposed congestion charge.




You ask me to stay on point, but you still have not addressed the question that I presented, will the congestion charge work, and if not, why.

You continue to spout your own divergent opinions on how it is everyone else's fault and how you should not be inconvenienced by paying more money to cross the river.

All my statements have addressed your remarks, so if they are off topic, you may want to stay on topic yourself so that peoples direct replies to your statements also stay on topic.


And you really do not know how to post here yet, do you. Noone here has insulted you more than to call your ideas false and uneducated. Subtle difference, but obviously lost on you.



If I were you, I would just give it a rest and chill over the weekend. Drop this topic altogether.


And one thing that Zippy pointed out. You posted insulting two moderators here. Do you even bother looking before you jump?


Don't answer that.

Look up "Rhetorical".

[ZippyTheChimp]

After several PMs, deleted posts, and multiple IDs, he has been banned.

I don't think he is old enough to have a driver's license.

[Ninjahedge]

After several PMs, deleted posts, and multiple IDs, he has been banned.

I don't think he is old enough to have a driver's license.

I was going to bet money on that.

If you want, I can trim the fat on my posts here Zip.

[ryan]

I don't think he is old enough to have a driver's license.

I thought that or IQ... I'm always fooled into thinking it's all hyperbole.

[Ninjahedge]

I thought that or IQ... I'm always fooled into thinking it's all hyperbole.


I have always wondered what would make a bole hyper.......

[ZippyTheChimp]

More info on traffic congestion in London is here.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20060116/200/1713

Endless Traffic: Can It End?

by Gail Robinson
16 Jan 2006

http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/traffic_jam.jpg

On the third day of last month's transit strike, some New Yorkers found a silver lining in the shutdown of subways and buses. Bicycle traffic had increased by 500 percent. People got more exercise as they walked to work. And some of the emergency traffic rules -- requiring cars entering much of Manhattan to have at least four people, and restricting some avenues for emergency vehicles -- seemed to work.

"Because this strike is teaching us that we are dependent on mass transit, not cars, to travel in and around Gotham, we now have the freedom to rethink our outmoded policies of giving every inch of public space for the exclusive use of private automobiles," wrote Harris Silver of Citystreets in the New York Sun.

New Yorkers are of course happy the strike is over, and most surely hope that, when the vote is completed this week, transit workers will have approved their proposed new contract. But Silver is not alone in believing that something good came out of the strike -- a hint of what New York could do to combat congestion caused by cars and trucks.

Because such congestion pollutes the air, wastes energy, threatens pedestrians and cyclists, and affects the quality of life, a growing number of individuals and organizations say New Yorkers should not have to put up with it anymore. For inspiration many look to London, which three years ago began charging drivers to enter the city's auto-clogged central district during peak hours. (That's not all London has done: See New York Needs A London Plan by Stephen Hammer.) Although Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said that such a plan, popularly known as congestion pricing or value pricing, is not on his agenda, advocates still plan to pursue it along with other strategies that might ease traffic throughout the city.

THE PROBLEM

New York City has a low rate of car ownership and remains the one major American city where most people do not even own a car. Almost half of New Yorkers use public transportation to get to work -- about ten times the national average, according to a report (in pdf format) by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Since many others walk or bike, only 360,000 New Yorkers drive cars to get to their jobs. Nevertheless, every weekday some 800,000 cars enter Manhattan south of 60th Street.

The city streets almost burst from the strain. "The heart of midtown Manhattan can accommodate only 9,000 moving vehicles without succumbing to gridlock," John Seabrook wrote in the New Yorker in 2002.

And so the average New Yorker who drove at peak hours spent about 50 hours a year in traffic delays in 2003, according to the Texas Transportation Institute's Mobility Survey (in pdf format). It's a lot worse elsewhere. New York ranked (in pdf format) as the 18th most congested urban area in the nation, behind not only such well-known bottlenecks as Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. but such smaller areas as Orlando, Florida, and Baltimore, Maryland.

Such statistics provide scant comfort. Congestion creates huge problems here. It fouls the city's air, since trucks, buses and cars create much of New York's smog and soot problem and adds to the greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming. The traffic wastes energy and slows buses.

The jams extend beyond Manhattan. One key argument against the Atlantic Yards project is that it would bring the already clogged traffic along Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues in downtown Brooklyn to a complete halt. Residents of Staten Island cite as a key problem the severe traffic congestion arising from the borough's rapid growth. The American Automobile Association singles out the exit ramp from the George Washington bridge in upper Manhattan as one of the worst "commuter hot spots" in the entire country, creating traffic jams on the Major Deegan and Cross Bronx Expressways.

AIDING AND ABETTING CONGESTION

At least some of this congestion results from deliberate policies over the years.

Indeed, congestion traditionally has been seen as an indication of urban vitality. To many experts, "a bumper-to-bumper crop of cars is a byproduct of the very prosperity, mobility and individual flexibility modern citizens value: Where traffic is at a standstill, it generally means business is humming," Ann Hulbert recently wrote in the New York Times Magazine.

For decades, Robert Moses, the city's master builder of the 20th century, encouraged cars by building parkways and gearing his projects to drivers instead of bus or subway riders. Planners removed rail track from bridges in favor of more lanes for cars. The Brooklyn Bridge could carry 426,000 people a day in 1907, but only 178,000 in 1988, according to former city traffic commissioner Sam Schwartz. To make matters worse, the city does not charge a toll to cross any of its four East River bridges -- and, since 1986, has charged only a one-way toll (into Staten Island) on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, which some critics consider one of the most pro congestion policies ever devised.

The city government provides free or subsidized parking to some employees. As a result, government workers in lower and midtown Manhattan are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to drive to work , according to one study (in pdf format). "If government workers commuted by car at the same rate as other workers, there would be 14,000 fewer cars coming into the Manhattan Central Business District each day," the report concluded.

And some critics charge the city's view of its role adds to the problem. "We're still measuring success the old fashioned way," said Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives. He notes that, under transportation, the Mayor's Management Report does not explicitly mention reducing traffic, and instead cites such goals as "improving traffic flow" and repairing potholes.

CONGESTION PRICING

In 2000, central London faced many problems similar to those confronting New York today. Although only about 10 percent of people traveled into the area by private cars (by one estimate, less than 15 percent of New Yorkers use private cars to come into Manhattan), this greatly taxed streets that have changed little since medieval days. With London set to have an elected mayor for the first time, Ken Livingstone ran on a platform that included a charge on driving at peak hours in certain parts of the city, with the revenue slated for mass transit, particularly an increase in the number of buses.

Interestingly the idea for congestion pricing had its roots in New York -- in the work of William Vickery, a Columbia University professor and Nobel prize winner. In the 1950s, he proposed the subways charge riders more at peak travel times. He later extended the concept to traffic. The idea was adopted in Singapore and in three Norwegian cities. But in Vickery's hometown, congestion pricing has remained largely just an idea.

While the British may not be quite so enamored of their cars as Americans, it is a country whose onetime leader Margaret Thatcher said, "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure." Livingstone's Conservative rival came out against congestion charges, and opponents set up a Web site to collect signatures and campaign against the proposal -- in sometimes virulent language.

But Livingstone won, and he and his traffic commissioner Robert Kiley, who once chaired New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, went ahead with the plan. Beginning in February 2003, the city charged cars entering an area of about eight square miles on weekdays 5 pounds, or about $8.75, with some exemptions. In July 2005 the fee increased to 8 pounds. People can pay at machines, stores and by Internet or cell phone. Video cameras photograph cars to insure compliance.

The city government considers the program a success. It lists (in pdf format) reductions in congestion of about 30 percent. Auto trips during peak hours declined by about 20 percent, as bus ridership increased by 29,000 in the first year. The city plans to extend the zone westward in February 2007.

There are dissenters. While the charges have eased inner city traffic, they have made things worse on approaches to the city and on outer roads, Johan Wennstrom wrote in Tech Central Station, an online technology publication.

Some say it has hurt business. "A five pound-a-day charge has already resulted in 70,000 fewer car journeys a day into central London -- and this diminution of paying customers has already had an extremely negative impact on retailers and restaurateurs in particular," the London Chamber of Commerce's chief executive, Colin Stanbridge, told the Guardian.

Other cities may follow London's lead however. Stockholm has been testing a plan and will decide whether to implement it permanently later this year.

A PLAN FOR NEW YORK

On this side of the Atlantic, the idea attracted a flurry of interest last November when the Partnership for New York City, a business group, began discussing how congestion pricing might work here.

Some of the impetus arose from concerns that congestion is bad for business. ''In the core of Times Square, there is no doubt about the need to create more space for pedestrians,'' Tim Tompkins, president of the Times Square Alliance business district, told the New York Times. ''In one October afternoon a couple of years ago, between 3 and 7 p.m. we counted 4,000 people walking literally in the street, in traffic lanes, because the sidewalks were too crowded.''

But newly reelected Mayor Michael Bloomberg quickly cast doubt on any such proposal. "Although we're always open to ideas from the business community, this isn't on the mayor's second-term agenda," said Edward Skyler, then a Bloomberg spokesman (now a deputy mayor).

The partnership says it will issue a report later this year that will consider congestion pricing along with other measures to fight New York's traffic jams. But however the partnership comes down on the issue, other groups will push for it. The Citywide Coalition for Traffic Relief has formed to advocate a number of measures to combat congestion, including congestion pricing. And in its editorial on Bloomberg's inauguration for a second term, the New York Times said, "We hope that the mayor uses his unusual position to go a few places where no normal politician dares, like imposing congestion pricing for cars coming into those areas of the city with the heaviest traffic."

"There is no other tool out there as effective for cutting traffic as congestion pricing," Andrew H.Darrell, New York regional director of the group Environmental Defense, has said.

A 2003 analysis by the Regional Plan Association says charging people to enter part of Manhattan at peak hours could reduce morning rush hour traffic by up to 17 percent, depending on the specifics of the pricing scheme. In its analysis, the group found that only one percent of the four million people who enter Manhattan on a weekday would not do so because of a congestion fee.

There is some small precedent for the idea here. The Port Authority charges customers using EZ pass at its bridges and tunnels in the city $1 more at peak times than at less traveled hours of the day.

Until recently, congestion fees would have been unworkable because tollbooths with attendants would have had to collect the charges. But experts say the technology now used in EZ passes allows motorists to be charged electronically without even stopping.

The charges appeal to environmentalists and advocates for mass transit, walking and cycling. They also have support from some free-market champions. "Roads are congested because they are free, and because no market mechanism exists to allocate scarce road capacity," wrote Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDoren of the Cato Institute, a think tank that supports limited government and free markets.

But not everyone agrees. Mitchell Moss, a professor at NYU's Wagner school and onetime adviser to Bloomberg, has called congestion pricing "a threat to the economic vitality of our city." Writing in the Daily News, he said, the fees would "increase the cost of getting to work for New Yorkers who live in communities not served by mass transit, hurt Manhattan hospitals that treat patients from all five boroughs and make our museums and cultural attractions less accessible to suburbanites."

Others raise the equity issue. Congestion pricing, wrote Kerry Dougherty in the Norfolk Virginia-Pilot, penalizes lower income workers and "rewards those with flexible hours and punishes those with inflexible schedules [who] tend to be concentrated toward the bottom of the wage scale."

This is less true in New York than in other places,since in New York poor people are unlikely to own cars, let along drive them into Manhattan in the middle of the workweek. But certainly any fee poses more of a burden on people with less money to pay it.

And even the plan's adherents concede it would face huge political obstacles (in pdf format), with many observers predicting that Bloomberg would not want to risk a bruising battle on this issue.

TOLLS FOR BRIDGES

The mayor has reason to be wary. Early in his first term, he considered placing tolls on the now free East River bridges to generate revenue. The idea had first surfaced in 1970, as part of a possible New York response to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. But it never went anywhere.

And it died again in 2002. Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz reportedly called the tolls "a turkey," and his Queens counterpart, Helen Marshall, said commuters should not be "punished" for traveling from one borough to another. City Council members from Brooklyn and Queens protested too. Bloomberg backed down, saying, "Some of the effects of reducing traffic and that sort of thing would be ... a good idea, but I think, if you really look at it, it's not a short-term solution to our problems."

But advocates say it would solve problems. They note free bridges are not free, costing about $60 million a year to maintain and operate. According to a report (in pdf format) by transportation analyst (and Gotham Gazette columnist) Bruce Schaller, the tolls would reduce traffic congestion in downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City by up to 14 percent.

OTHER IDEAS TO FIGHT TRAFFIC

Turn-restricted Streets: Under Bloomberg, the city has designated nine cross-town Manhattan streets "Thru Streets," restricting turns from them during the business day. A report (in pdf format) by the Department of Transportation found that travel times on the street fell by 25 percent, while speeds increased by 33 percent.

Cleaner Fuel: Last summer, Bloomberg announced a $71 million program to improve traffic congestion in the city. In truth, much of the program would leave cars where they are but make them burn cleaner fuel.

Encouraging Alternative Transportation, etc.: The mayor's new program also called for spending $21 million on various efforts to encourage walking and bicycling and $14 million for improvements to the Traffic Management Center in Long Island City, which sends out electronic advisories of traffic tie-ups.

Traffic Calming: So called "traffic calming measures'' are not so much designed to reduce traffic as to make the cars less of a threat to pedestrians and cyclists. As part of the Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project, the city is changing the timing on traffic signals to give pedestrians a green light a few seconds before vehicles get the go-ahead. This, said Craig Hammerman, district manager of Community Board 6 in Brooklyn, "gives pedestrians the opportunity to take control of the crosswalk." While such measures do not explicitly aim to reduce congestion, Hammerman said, they can have that effect because they slow traffic down, making driving a less attractive option.

Parking policies: Drivers circling blocks looking for parking spaces create congestion. The solution according to some advocates: less parking, not more. A 2002 survey found that only 24 percent of the almost 30,000 curbside parking spaces in Manhattan south of 59th Street had meters. Donald Shoup, a professor at University of California Los Angeles and author of "The High Cost of Free Parking" argues that free parking adds to "extreme auto dependence, rapid urban sprawl and extravagant energy use." Shoup believes the city should set rates for on-street parking high enough so that about 15 percent of the spaces are usually unoccupied. London has already done this.

Removing Roads: For many years, people figured the solution to congestion was to build more roads. While such a solution is largely impractical in densely developed New York, many say it is not very effective anywhere. Building more roads, as the interstate system and Robert Moses' New York parkways have shown, makes driving more attractive, leading more people to do more of it.

Conversely, some experts believe, removing roads does not make congestion worse. In the late 1990s, Transport for London studied a number of major roads -- including the West Side Highway in the 1970s -- that were taken out of service. While traffic engineers predicted chaos, little resulted. Instead, some traffic disappeared, wrote Aaron Naparstek in the New York Press: "When it wasn't convenient to drive anymore, commuters took a different mode of transit, traveled at a different time of day, or made fewer, more efficient trips."

While few people call for destroying existing highways, advocates say that something must -- and can -- be done to ease traffic. "We got rid of graffiti, we have discounts on subways and buses, and we may even be on the verge of having clean public bathrooms," the Regional Plan Association wrote in 2003. "We have it in our grasp to do something about mind-numbing traffic congestion."

Related: New York Needs a London Plan (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/issueoftheweek/20060116/200/1717)

[lofter1]

Encouraging Alternative Transportation, etc.: The mayor's new program also called for spending $21 million on various efforts to encourage walking and bicycling...
Then why is NYC so antagonistic towards Critical Mass ( http://www.critical-mass.org/north-america.html ) ?

What is clear is that bicycling, whether for commuting, recreation or protest, is growing. It’s also clear that the city has more to gain by facilitating bicycling — cleaner air, healthier citizens and a more balanced transportation system — than by stifling it. ( http://www.transalt.org/press/media/2004/040830amny.html )If Bloomberg had embraced the actions sponsored by Critical Mass (as has been done in other cities such as San Francisco) rather than prosecuting it he would have gone a long way towards encouraging a positive course regarding cycling in NYC.

[Ninjahedge]

Persecuting it Lofter? (I don't think it was criminal...)


I noticed this too. With all the restrictions, there seemed to still be a lot of traffic, but it MOVED A LOT BETTER.

They need to see what they can do to balance the commuter load. Set trucks up with transport passes month to month that would allow unlimited travel at certain times based on certain fees. Additional fees would apply if the driver did not make his window, but additional credits where he was able to either reduce his trips, or go at less congested hours.

They need to eliminate parking on a lot of the main roads. Eliminate it outright.

At the same time, they need to increase parking in the garages (and also force the garages to display full rate, not pre-tax rates, for parking). They need to offer incentives for these open lot guys to BUILD something there instead of just having the cheap little attendant shacks in front of a paved lot.

They also need to make areas like Chinatown entirely pedestrian for most of the day. Restrict all traffic during that time, and restrict to only commercial traffic other times.

They also need to set up a bridge toll fund that would go DIRECTLY TO IMPROVING THE BRIDGE THE TOLL WAS IMPOSED ON!!!! You put a $2 fee on the Brooklyn Bridge, make sure that that revenue is earmarked for improvements or maintanance of the bridge itself.

Have too much in funds? REDUCE THE FARE!!! You can put some in a trust fund for possible major rennovations, but if you have enough $$, you should not continue to punish everyone and spend the cash on other crap.


But that is about it. I think the congestion tolls would work VERY well here, so long as we do not start treating them like we treat traffic tickets.

"We have no quotas for tickets".

BS.

[lofter1]

Persecuting it Lofter? (I don't think it was criminal...)

Actually the NYPD thought it was criminal -- cyclists running red lights, grouping without a permit, etc. -- and have arrested hundreds of bike riders over the past 18 months... http://www.nowpublic.com/node/8808

Critical Mass Bike Rides Face Police Crackdown
Dec. 27, 2005

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/27/1443258

Cycling advocates have faced targeted surveillance and policing over the past year. We bring you excerpts from the documentary "Still We Ride," which traces the police crackdown on Critical Mass bike rides in New York City since the Republican National Convention. [includes rush transcript]

The ad hoc bicycle advocacy movement Critical Mass consists of monthly group bike rides in cities around the world. In New York City, the rides have been specially targeted by NYPD officers in uniform and in plain clothes.

Last August, when thousands descended on New York for the Republican National Convention, over three thousand bicyclists and skaters participated in a Critical mass ride on the eve of the start of street protests. That night, police moved in on the bikers and arrested hundreds. Over a week and a half surrounding the RNC, police arrested nearly 400 bike riders.

Since then, activists and civil liberties groups say the City of New York has been targeting bicyclists and Critical Mass in particular. Police presence at rides includes plain clothes officers who videotape riders without identifying themselves as members of the NYPD.

Still We Ride (http://www.stillweridethemovie.com/), documentary produced by Elizabeth Press, Andrew Lynn and Christopher Ryan.
Elizabeth Press, co-director of Still We Ride (http://www.stillweridethemovie.com/). She is also a producer at Democracy Now!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Manhattan Driving: Neccessity or Choice? (http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/2006/winter/schaller_Feb2006.pdf)

[NYatKNIGHT]

Let Traffic Flow and So Will Commerce, Groups Tell City

By THOMAS J. LUECK (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/thomas_j_lueck/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: February 23, 2006

In an unusual pairing of business and environmental interests, five neighborhood business groups are asking the Bloomberg administration to do more to relieve congestion on city streets, citing a new study of private car traffic in Manhattan.

The business groups, representing property owners in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, signed a letter sent last week to Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff that criticizes "current piecemeal efforts to relieve traffic and promote alternatives to driving."

The City Hall letter was accompanied by an advance copy of a study, to be released today, that was commissioned by an advocacy group, Transportation Alternatives. Relying largely on government data, it concludes that private cars far outnumber buses, trucks and commercial vehicles, many people entering Manhattan by car are simply passing through, and 90 percent of commuters in private cars could be using public transportation.

"This makes it clear that we don't have to accept the old argument that restricting automobile use will hurt the economy," said Paul Steely White, the executive director of Transportation Alternatives, a 32-year-old advocacy group supported by member contributions and foundation grants.

The study, conducted by Bruce Schaller, a transportation consultant who has extensively worked for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission, offers no broad solutions. But it proposes a series of steps long advocated by transportation planners: dedicating more space on the streets for buses and bicycles and freeing more sidewalk space for pedestrians.

"We wanted to jump in with both feet and say we agree," said Barbara Adler, the executive director of the Columbus Avenue Business Improvement District on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Also signing the City Hall letter were a nearby Manhattan group, the Columbus-Amsterdam Avenue Business Improvement District; two groups in Brooklyn, the Myrtle Avenue Brooklyn Partnership and the North Flatbush Avenue Business Improvement District; and the Sutphin Boulevard Business Improvement District in Queens. "We are not saying 'put an end to cars,' " said Mirvlyn Brice, the executive director of the North Flatbush Avenue group, which represents a congested business strip between Atlantic Avenue and Grand Army Plaza. "We are focusing on how we can make things more pedestrian friendly."

Jennifer Falk, a spokeswoman for Mr. Doctoroff, said he was reviewing the letter and the study, but declined to comment further.

Mr. Schaller's analysis, entitled "Necessity or Choice: Why People Drive to Manhattan," raises questions about how passenger cars affect the city's economy. It found that most people who drive into Manhattan below 60th Street do so because of the comfort and convenience of their cars, ignoring easily available public transportation.

Sixty percent of the vehicles on those streets are passenger cars, and congestion has surged since 2001, the study found.

The study found that a large share of people driving into Manhattan are bound for somewhere else and therefore contribute little to the city's economy beyond bridge or tunnel tolls. It said 61 percent of those crossing East River bridges were making through trips and that more than 30 percent of those using Hudson River tunnels were bound for destinations outside Manhattan's main business district.

The analysis also underscored some of the political tensions that surround restrictions on car use and have emerged in the past when officials have suggested measures like congestion pricing — imposing a fee to drive into the business district when traffic is heaviest — as a method to discourage people from driving at peak times.

It found that more people who live in other parts of the city commute by private cars into the main Manhattan business district than those who live in the suburbs. The largest number of city drivers are in Brooklyn and Queens, the study found, making them unlikely to support congestion pricing by way of East River bridges.

Support for restrictions on private cars is not fully shared among business people. The business groups publicly supporting such restrictions represent less than 10 percent of the city's business improvement districts, and none of them are in the main business district.

But executives said there had been a broad shift in attitudes from the days when business leaders almost universally sought greater access for their customers and employees who wanted to drive into Manhattan from the suburbs.

"There has been a gradual shift over 30 years," said Daniel A. Biederman, the executive director of the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation. Although many business owners might still oppose stiffer restrictions on private car use, "it would be closer to 50-50," he said, "and there wouldn't be strident opposition."

Tim Tompkins, the president of the Times Square Alliance, a group that has struggled for years with the problems of gridlocked vehicular and pedestrian traffic, responded cautiously to the Transportation Alternatives report.

"You can think of the transportation system as the arteries of the city economy, and there is no doubt that the arteries are clogged," he said. "But you have to proceed carefully and make sure the oxygen gets through."

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[Kris]

March 2, 2006
Reports Give Conflicting Views of Congestion Pricing in City
By SEWELL CHAN

For an idea that barely exists on paper and has the support of neither the mayor nor the City Council, congestion pricing — charging a fee for driving into the busiest areas of the city at the busiest times — has attracted a striking amount of controversy.

Last week, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, responding to an advocacy group's report about traffic congestion in Manhattan, said that congestion pricing was among several options the city should examine. That rankled opponents of congestion pricing, who released their own report yesterday saying it would hurt retailers and other businesses.

The flurry of activity comes as the Partnership for New York City, an influential association of business leaders, is completing a major study of whether congestion pricing would be feasible.

The study was to be completed by the end of last year, but its release was delayed until this month, in part because Mr. Bloomberg distanced himself from the plan after he was re-elected in November. At the time, his spokesman said the idea was not on the mayor's second-term agenda.

Last week, however, Mr. Bloomberg struck a more moderate tone at a news conference in Harlem, where he was asked about a report by Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group for pedestrians and cyclists. That report argued that most people who drive private cars into Manhattan south of 60th Street do so for comfort or convenience, not for economic necessity, and could easily switch to mass transit.

"We are trying to make traffic flow more freely," Mr. Bloomberg said. "There are places in the world that have tried congestion pricing. And it's certainly something that we should be looking at."

But the mayor also argued that there were unforeseen drawbacks to many alternatives that looked good on paper — like shifting truck deliveries to nighttime hours and installing speed bumps on busy streets. "The real world is, not everybody is going to use mass transit," he said. "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."

Stu Loeser, a spokesman for the mayor, emphasized yesterday that Mr. Bloomberg had not changed his views. "The mayor's remarks in Harlem should not be interpreted as a loosening or easing up of his position last November," he said.

Even so, congestion-pricing foes have been galvanized into action.

The Queens Chamber of Commerce, which has 1,300 members, and Councilman David I. Weprin of Queens released a report arguing that while reducing congestion was "a worthwhile objective," congestion pricing would reduce consumer spending and tax revenues and harm small businesses and commuters who drive. A reduction of 40,000 people entering Manhattan each day could result in a $1.9 billion reduction in spending, according to the report.

Parking-garage owners have been fierce critics of congestion-pricing proposals; Vincent L. Petraro, a lawyer who represents the Metropolitan Parking Association, an industry group, is a chairman of the Queens chamber's legislative committee.

Supporters of congestion pricing said the report relied on unsound assumptions because it did not consider the lost productivity and wasted time caused by slow-moving buses and cars.

Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the partnership, said that London's experiment in congestion pricing, which began in 2003, was a success. "Our conversations with the leadership in London, in government and business, show that they are enthusiastic about the positive results," she said.

Peter H. Kostmayer, president of Citizens for NYC, a nonprofit organization that gives grants to neighborhood groups around the city, urged Mr. Bloomberg to remain open-minded. "We're focusing on four problems — congestion, danger, noise and pollution — and we think this is a simple, bold, dramatic step, like the citywide smoking ban, that could solve all four at once," he said.

Mr. Kostmayer conceded that congestion pricing was controversial. "It's not consistent with the American ideal that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want," he said.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

"It's not consistent with the American ideal that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want,"

What America is he living in?

Or was that sarcasm?

[ryan]

A reduction of 40,000 people entering Manhattan each day could result in a $1.9 billion reduction in spending, according to the report.

Bah. These people will sit at home and pout because they'd have to pay a toll to drive into Manhattan? They will take trains or pay the toll.

[BPC]

And congestion pricing means increased revenues.

[ryan]

And congestion pricing means increased revenues.

Exactly. Seems like such a no-brainer - especially after the success of London's congestion toll.

[TLOZ Link5]

My primary concern is whether this might influence companies to relocate to the suburbs or elsewhere.

[ryan]

I don't think there are many companies in midtown that are working on so small a margin that this would make a difference. Deliveries are probably among their lowest concerns - ppl in my office about things happening quickly than cheaply. I can't see the execs who drive (or are driven) to work in midtown caring much either.

[nick-taylor]

I'm suprised more hasn't been noted about the success in London and that its actually expanding. Naturally though New York City would have to prove that it is going to pump the revenues into greater public transportation.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Companies who have employees who don't use mass transit, for whatever reason, might start to promote carpooling or even use their own shuttles. That's the point, people will figure out what they need to do and make the adjustment.

Also, New York's congestion zone has the advantage of being surrounded by water on three sides and having Central Park block a lot of access from the north, so there is relatively few places to install the necessary systems.

[BPC]

I don't think there are many companies in midtown that are working on so small a margin that this would make a difference. Deliveries are probably among their lowest concerns - ppl in my office about things happening quickly than cheaply. I can't see the execs who drive (or are driven) to work in midtown caring much either.


BTW, on the subject of deliveries, if we are fixing the toll structure, then we should fix ALL of its problems. Delivery trucks are essential for the City -- your groceries and dry goods are not going to come into the City on the Path train. Private cars are not. Those who use them have another available option -- public transportation. Yet we charge trucks far higher tolls than cars. It should be exactly the REVERSE. Delivery trucks should get the lowest tolls, private automobiles the highest ones.

Oh, and reserving commercial highways like the West Side Highway for private vehicles only forces delivery trucks on to residential blocks, where they run down pedestrians, fill up everyone's windows with diesel fumes, and generally make the City unpleasant, while encouraging more private cars into the City by clearing a path for them. Sound policy would dictate doing that we do the REVERSE.

OK, that's my spiel for the day.

[ryan]

Companies who have employees who don't use mass transit, for whatever reason, might start to promote carpooling or even use their own shuttles.

I hear a lot about these driving people, but the only people in my office who I'm aware drive (or are driven) are executives with cars that indicate to me that a toll wouldn't hurt too much. Is there a driving population out there I'm missing?


Yet we charge trucks far higher tolls than cars. It should be exactly the REVERSE. Delivery trucks should get the lowest tolls, private automobiles the highest ones.

Reasoning I've read is that the toll is determined by weight - with the theory that heavier vehicles inflict more wear and tear on infrastructure. Originally, weren't most tolls justified as paying for the infrastructure? The NYS thruway was started out that way and now maintains itself (to a pretty high standard). I'm all for raising tolls on private cars, but I do think it's important to toll delivery trucks too - especially if the congestion charge only applies to certain hours.

[Ninjahedge]

It is also important when you realize that if a truck is hauling $100K worth of resellables, that an additional $10 or $20 is not going to be very noticable in the grand scheme of things.

If it is, then the system of delivery would have to be changed to accomodate it.

I, for one, would like to see the box-truck deliveries discouraged from coming in during rush. Somehow I do not consider Aquafina being so important that it needs to be delivered at 9:30 on a tuesday.... ;)

[ryan]

It is also important when you realize that if a truck is hauling $100K worth of resellables, that an additional $10 or $20 is not going to be very noticable in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, and, though I know nothing about the trucking business, I assume that the overhead is big enough that a toll would be insignificant.

[milleniumcab]

I dont think "the congestion charge" alone will help much, maybe a little. What will help though, putting the HOV restrictions ,that was in effect after 9/11, back in force.... Do you remember those days when every car entering midtown had to have two or more people in it, from 6 AM to 10 AM...... Now that made a difference and I mean a huge difference...I was surprised and dissappointed to see that restriction lifted...I say put the restriction back along with the congestion charge... By the way, I drive a yellow..:)..
I am one of the good ones though... Way up there in language, geography, driving and people skills...:cool:

[ablarc]

I dont think "the congestion charge" alone will help much, maybe a little.
Bump it upward incrementally until it makes a difference.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Congestion Pricing

by Bruce Schaller
15 Mar 2006

Most people would surely agree that the snail’s pace of traffic in the Manhattan central business district is a pain. But there is much disagreement over whether the benefits of speeding up that traffic are worth the costs, or even what the costs would be.

Although only one of many ideas to ease traffic, the flash point for this debate is congestion pricing. Many people in both London and New York view as a great success London’s £8 ($14) a day congestion charge for weekday travel in central London, which was instituted three years ago. When the idea was raised in New York City after the mayoral election in November, however, a Bloomberg administration spokesman said the administration wasn’t interested. Nevertheless, congestion pricing made headlines again in February with the release of two reports and continued mixed signals from Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Whether congestion pricing itself is ever implemented in New York, this debate may yet improve mobility in the Manhattan central business district (referred to as the CBD, and defined as from the Battery to 60th Street).

How Would Motorists Respond?

The core of the congestion pricing debate revolves around the question of how motorists would respond to a congestion charge. The http://www.queenschamber.org/index.htm Queens Chamber of Commerce released a report in late February titled, “A Cure Worse than the Disease? How London's 'Congestion Pricing' System Could Hurt New York City's Economy." The report estimates that with a congestion charge similar to London’s, 40,000 fewer people would enter the Manhattan central business district each weekday, resulting in a loss of $2.7 billion in economic output. The report says that working-class and middle-class car commuters from Queens and the other outer boroughs would be especially hard hit, as would small to mid-size businesses that need to go into Manhattan frequently.

The Queens Chamber of Commerce report came on the heels of a Transportation Alternatives report (conducted by me), titled, “Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan.” This report argued that very few people would stop coming to Manhattan with congestion pricing or other steps to restrict car use in the central business district. Many assume that most people who drive into Manhattan do so because of poor or nonexistent transit access. Yet Census data show that 90 percent of auto commuters have access to buses, subways and trains. Not even the length of the commute need deter auto commuters; 80 percent have a transit alternative that offers travel times within 15 minutes of their car trip.

The report also pointed out that London experienced only a two percent decline in the number of people coming into central London as a result of its rather steep charge. (The Queens Chamber of Commerce assumed, without explaining why, that 14 percent would be deterred from traveling into Manhattan.) In London, the number of trips taken in vehicles subject to the charge dropped by 31 percent, but the number of people coming into central London declined only slightly because most diverted auto users switched to transit, including expanded bus service.

For the Manhattan business district, congestion pricing would reduce congestion, speed bus and taxi trips, reduce noise, afford more space for pedestrians and make the borough a more attractive -- not less attractive –- place to work, live, shop and be entertained. That’s been London’s experience and there is every reason to expect it would be New York’s experience.

Benefit To Outer Boroughs

Not just Manhattan would benefit. The outer boroughs would benefit from beefed up transit service that could be funded by the congestion charge, as London has done. The outer boroughs would also benefit from less traffic passing through outer borough neighborhoods on the way into Manhattan. In Long Island City, 57 percent of traffic entering the area during the morning peak hour is bound for the Queensboro Bridge. Wouldn’t getting some of those cars off the roads be good for Queens? Likewise in Brooklyn, traffic bound for the East River bridges accounts for 43 percent of all vehicles entering downtown Brooklyn during the morning rush hour and 45 percent during midday.

Reducing traffic would also seem to benefit those small to mid-size businesses that need to go into Manhattan frequently. These folks presumably charge for their time and would benefit from having to spend less time in traffic. Given what they bill on an hourly basis, a plumber or electrician or computer repairman needs to save only a few minutes to recoup a congestion charge.

Recent comments by Mayor Bloomberg have been both hot and cold toward congestion pricing. The businessman in him seems to understand the logic of reducing traffic by charging for use of the streets. But the mayor has also become an astute politician. That part of him knows how he has been hammered on the issue each time it gets raised. Thus, after commenting in February that congestion charging “is certainly something that we should be looking at,” his spokesman said he was not “loosening or easing up” on the position he took last November.
Other Ways To Improve Movement

While discussions of traffic in Manhattan turn toward congestion pricing, in fact there are many ways to improve pedestrian, bus and bicycle movement in the business district. City traffic planners need to be freed from their fear of impinging on the prerogatives of that sacred cow, the American automobile. The city would then be open to dedicating more street space for buses and bicycles and wider sidewalks. Traffic might not improve – it probably takes pricing measures to reduce congestion. But the 86 percent of trips to Manhattan central business district destinations taken by modes other than the auto would be easier to make. That would make life more livable in Manhattan.

Different Kinds Of Congestion Pricing

There are also many different ways to institute pricing strategies. San Diego pioneered the so-called HOT lanes along one of the major highways leading into the central part of the city. Motorists have a choice: pay nothing and sit in traffic, or pay a toll and zip into town. Tolls are increased as traffic volumes go up in order to maintain free-flow conditions on the tolled lanes.

HOT lanes overcome people’s resistance to forcing everyone to pay while also using pricing to give those who are willing to pay a speedier option. The same concept could be applied in New York City by tolling selected lanes on bridges and selected avenues into the central business district. E-ZPass could be used to pay the tolls, avoiding the need to install the elaborate camera system used to read license plates in London.

Let’s hope that the debate over congestion pricing does not lead to another dead end for the goal of improving mobility into and within the Manhattan business district. Even if New York is not ready for a full plate congestion pricing, there are plenty of other effective ways to give a little relief to pedestrians, bus and bicycle riders, and even to motorists who would rather pay than sit.

Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting and a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/transportation/20060315/16/1788

[milleniumcab]

I agree with Mr.Schaller's assesment in its totality. We have to do something about the traffic problem in Manhattan and I believe the congestion charge will do the trick. And I think advantages of having less cars enter the city each and every day will by far outweigh the dissadvantages...
Congestion Pricing

by Bruce Schaller
15 Mar 2006

Most people would surely agree that the snail’s pace of traffic in the Manhattan central business district is a pain. But there is much disagreement over whether the benefits of speeding up that traffic are worth the costs, or even what the costs would be.

Although only one of many ideas to ease traffic, the flash point for this debate is congestion pricing. Many people in both London and New York view as a great success London’s £8 ($14) a day congestion charge for weekday travel in central London, which was instituted three years ago. When the idea was raised in New York City after the mayoral election in November, however, a Bloomberg administration spokesman said the administration wasn’t interested. Nevertheless, congestion pricing made headlines again in February with the release of two reports and continued mixed signals from Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Whether congestion pricing itself is ever implemented in New York, this debate may yet improve mobility in the Manhattan central business district (referred to as the CBD, and defined as from the Battery to 60th Street).

How Would Motorists Respond?

The core of the congestion pricing debate revolves around the question of how motorists would respond to a congestion charge. The http://www.queenschamber.org/index.htm Queens Chamber of Commerce released a report in late February titled, “A Cure Worse than the Disease? How London's 'Congestion Pricing' System Could Hurt New York City's Economy." The report estimates that with a congestion charge similar to London’s, 40,000 fewer people would enter the Manhattan central business district each weekday, resulting in a loss of $2.7 billion in economic output. The report says that working-class and middle-class car commuters from Queens and the other outer boroughs would be especially hard hit, as would small to mid-size businesses that need to go into Manhattan frequently.

The Queens Chamber of Commerce report came on the heels of a Transportation Alternatives report (conducted by me), titled, “Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan.” This report argued that very few people would stop coming to Manhattan with congestion pricing or other steps to restrict car use in the central business district. Many assume that most people who drive into Manhattan do so because of poor or nonexistent transit access. Yet Census data show that 90 percent of auto commuters have access to buses, subways and trains. Not even the length of the commute need deter auto commuters; 80 percent have a transit alternative that offers travel times within 15 minutes of their car trip.

The report also pointed out that London experienced only a two percent decline in the number of people coming into central London as a result of its rather steep charge. (The Queens Chamber of Commerce assumed, without explaining why, that 14 percent would be deterred from traveling into Manhattan.) In London, the number of trips taken in vehicles subject to the charge dropped by 31 percent, but the number of people coming into central London declined only slightly because most diverted auto users switched to transit, including expanded bus service.

For the Manhattan business district, congestion pricing would reduce congestion, speed bus and taxi trips, reduce noise, afford more space for pedestrians and make the borough a more attractive -- not less attractive –- place to work, live, shop and be entertained. That’s been London’s experience and there is every reason to expect it would be New York’s experience.

Benefit To Outer Boroughs

Not just Manhattan would benefit. The outer boroughs would benefit from beefed up transit service that could be funded by the congestion charge, as London has done. The outer boroughs would also benefit from less traffic passing through outer borough neighborhoods on the way into Manhattan. In Long Island City, 57 percent of traffic entering the area during the morning peak hour is bound for the Queensboro Bridge. Wouldn’t getting some of those cars off the roads be good for Queens? Likewise in Brooklyn, traffic bound for the East River bridges accounts for 43 percent of all vehicles entering downtown Brooklyn during the morning rush hour and 45 percent during midday.

Reducing traffic would also seem to benefit those small to mid-size businesses that need to go into Manhattan frequently. These folks presumably charge for their time and would benefit from having to spend less time in traffic. Given what they bill on an hourly basis, a plumber or electrician or computer repairman needs to save only a few minutes to recoup a congestion charge.

Recent comments by Mayor Bloomberg have been both hot and cold toward congestion pricing. The businessman in him seems to understand the logic of reducing traffic by charging for use of the streets. But the mayor has also become an astute politician. That part of him knows how he has been hammered on the issue each time it gets raised. Thus, after commenting in February that congestion charging “is certainly something that we should be looking at,” his spokesman said he was not “loosening or easing up” on the position he took last November.
Other Ways To Improve Movement

While discussions of traffic in Manhattan turn toward congestion pricing, in fact there are many ways to improve pedestrian, bus and bicycle movement in the business district. City traffic planners need to be freed from their fear of impinging on the prerogatives of that sacred cow, the American automobile. The city would then be open to dedicating more street space for buses and bicycles and wider sidewalks. Traffic might not improve – it probably takes pricing measures to reduce congestion. But the 86 percent of trips to Manhattan central business district destinations taken by modes other than the auto would be easier to make. That would make life more livable in Manhattan.

Different Kinds Of Congestion Pricing

There are also many different ways to institute pricing strategies. San Diego pioneered the so-called HOT lanes along one of the major highways leading into the central part of the city. Motorists have a choice: pay nothing and sit in traffic, or pay a toll and zip into town. Tolls are increased as traffic volumes go up in order to maintain free-flow conditions on the tolled lanes.

HOT lanes overcome people’s resistance to forcing everyone to pay while also using pricing to give those who are willing to pay a speedier option. The same concept could be applied in New York City by tolling selected lanes on bridges and selected avenues into the central business district. E-ZPass could be used to pay the tolls, avoiding the need to install the elaborate camera system used to read license plates in London.

Let’s hope that the debate over congestion pricing does not lead to another dead end for the goal of improving mobility into and within the Manhattan business district. Even if New York is not ready for a full plate congestion pricing, there are plenty of other effective ways to give a little relief to pedestrians, bus and bicycle riders, and even to motorists who would rather pay than sit.

Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting and a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/transportation/20060315/16/1788

[estryker]

I can say, having lived in London for the past few years that the Congestion Charge zone has worked wonders on Central London - easier to cross streets as a pedestrial, tremendously improved bus journey times, more frequent mass transit service (because of increased demand), less polution in the zone 1 areas, and an altogether less manic atmosphere on the streets of the west end. By all accounts, the damage to Central London businesses has been negligible - and, that stands to reason; it is the heart of the city, so of course people will come in, they need to come in and will always want to.

The project, here, is an absolute success on all those levels and we could all expect the outcome to be similar in New York if congestion charging were to be put in force. The most dramatic change would be in areas such as Canal Street, 42nd Street, the West Side Highway, and the FDR. With less traffic, noise and air pollution in these areas, the quality of life should improve dramatically.

To offset the danger of decreased numbers of people coming into the city from the burbs, I do think that NJT, MTA, Port Authority, and ferry service providers would have to consider increasing their service frequency and capacity. Efforts should be made to provide mass transit (not bus) service to areas which have presently only poor service. East Side Access, Moynihan Station, the NJT's second Hudson tunnel, and LIRR extension to downtown would not only improve access but make rail travel to manhattan more appealing. Better yet, if congestion charging were priced to make rail travel not only appealing, but more affordable than travel by car, the success would be even greater.

Air pollution could be even more significantly reduced, if funds from congestion charging could somehow be used to get the Cross Harbour Freight tunnel under way, removing a significant number of freight trucks from Manhattan streets.

And, of course, if it were coupled with more uptown-downtown bike lanes, it follows that people might even set aside their cars in favor of getting fit while getting to work . . .

There would, of course, be some businesses relocating uptown, to the boroughs, Hudson County, or Bergen County - however, the economy of Manhattan below 59th street is more than resiliant enough to handle this and we can expect that the sort of businesses who would move could operate in any location. Their relocation could bring some economic development to these outlying "inner city" areas. Furthermore, in some cases (for example, the remaining light industry businesses on the far west side), their moving out could clear the way for the development of new and better residential communities and housing opportunities in manhattan's current development hot spots.

The only stumbling block i really foresee is that, with the Hudson river crossings already having a toll, some additional effort will be needed to move new jersey car commuters off their bridge and tunnel crossing addition. Special park and ride ferry facilities at significantly less than congestion charge and parking in new york? Congetion charge significantly higher than the current toll?

[Ninjahedge]

Congestion toll would have to be seperate from the bridge toll.

And if you made it $4 a day or whateevr it may be, you woudl see people start to drop from the NJ side. You would have to find a balance point, where the CPH gets higher due to reduced congestion.

The irony is, the less cars in manhattan, the more traveling they will be able to do (I would not be surprised if the actual milage total would increase with fewer total cars on the road!)

[MikeW]

NYC especially Manhattan is supposed to be noisy, crowded, and congested. It has been for 250 years, an it's worked so far. If you want a quiet, sedate, traffic free lifestyle, move the hell to Iowa. I'm sick of people moving here, to be in the center of everything, then bitching about the noise, the traffic, and the construction. Live with it or leave.

As far as the revenue raising potential of this stupid idea, more revenue is the last think NYC needs. Money is to NYC what crack is to a crack addict. No matter how much it gets it needs more. This is the highest taxed locality in the United States. Why the hell should it need more revenue. What the city government needs to do is to figure out how to be efficient and live within it's current revenue structure, if not shrink it's expenses, and cut taxes. It could start by laying off 100,000 unnecessary city employees.

[Ninjahedge]

NYC especially Manhattan is supposed to be noisy, crowded, and congested. It has been for 250 years, an it's worked so far. If you want a quiet, sedate, traffic free lifestyle, move the hell to Iowa.

No.


I'm sick of people moving here, to be in the center of everything, then bitching about the noise, the traffic, and the construction. Live with it or leave.

No.


As far as the revenue raising potential of this stupid idea, more revenue is the last think NYC needs.

Are you a comedian?


Money is to NYC what crack is to a crack addict. No matter how much it gets it needs more. This is the highest taxed locality in the United States.

Check your books. What kind of taxes are you talking about? Sales? I hate to tell you, but property tax is lower than NJ.

Also, most of the revenue generated here is sent elsewhere anyway. The thing that people are saying with this is not that they NEED the revenue, but that it could be USED once obtained.

What kind of problem do YOU have with a congestion charge? You are a native and you own a car? Do you realize "Native New York City Car Owner" is an inherent oxymoron?


Why the hell should it need more revenue. What the city government needs to do is to figure out how to be efficient and live within it's current revenue structure, if not shrink it's expenses, and cut taxes.

You are straw-manning the argument. You have nothing to say that refutes the contention that the congestion charge would actually make life better. You instead resort to the classic "If you don't like it, leave" which is usually brought on by other people that feel uncomfortable about any change in their lives, even if it is for the better.

You then change tack and go after taxed, a commonwealth negative topic, and equate congestion to taxes.


It could start by laying off 100,000 unnecessary city employees.

And we end with a brilliant unrelated issuance.

Mike man, you have to work a bit more if you are going to slam something around here. Please bring up something that supports your arguments, or at least bring the tone down a few notches. You just seeded an argument, not a discussion! If you are not happy with it... Hmmm, what was that phrase?

Oh yeah:

"Live with it or leave."

Oh yeah, I hear the Iowa BBS's are LOVELY this time of year! ;)

[estryker]

Thank you, Mike W, for reminding me just the sort of arrogance and willful ignorance, so endemic in New York, I left behind when i emmigrated to London. It makes me want to stay here even more . . .

You say you are tired of people moving to New York just to complain about the congestion, pollution, etc. I dont appreciate your assumption that i'm a foreigner and therefore do not appreciate new york for what it is. I grew up in New York and love it the way it used to be and the way it is now; thank you very much. That doesn't prevent me from seeing ways that it can be made to be better. And, would you seriously suggest that a greener city - healthier levels of pollution, safer streets, etc - would not be a better city?

I was never a supporter of Guiliani's whole "quality of life" campaign and the attitudes behind alot of his mostly white middle class supporters (thinking dirty streets and "broken windows" have anything to do with crime levels, etc.) But, please, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. All wealthy cities should seek to improve the quality of life for all their citizens - its just a matter of thinking about it in the right way - sensibly. A plan like congestion charging is a sensible way to get rid of some of the city's problems (just one: extraordinarily high asthma rates in children).

I will confess to one unrealistic fantasy of an improved quality of life in New York: to get rid of the rude, arrogant aspects of its culture. But then, what would people like you do with yourself then? Completely unworkable, isnt it.

[MikeW]

I see you're from Hoboken. If you want to slap a toll on Washington St., be my guest. Leave NY alone.

The combination of State and Local income taxes is the highest in the Nation. This is not something we should be proud of. In theory, your congestion charge could be used to lower that. You wanna bet that would be what would happen? I don't think even you ar that stupid. It would just be used to feed the rapacious 350,000 headed beast that is the city government in it's various forms.

And yes, I do live in Manhattan, and I do own a car.

What I object to, is that whatever the problem is, some feels the need to slap on a tax, fee, or service charge in order to fix it.


No.



No.



Are you a comedian?



Check your books. What kind of taxes are you talking about? Sales? I hate to tell you, but property tax is lower than NJ.

Also, most of the revenue generated here is sent elsewhere anyway. The thing that people are saying with this is not that they NEED the revenue, but that it could be USED once obtained.

What kind of problem do YOU have with a congestion charge? You are a native and you own a car? Do you realize "Native New York City Car Owner" is an inherent oxymoron?



You are straw-manning the argument. You have nothing to say that refutes the contention that the congestion charge would actually make life better. You instead resort to the classic "If you don't like it, leave" which is usually brought on by other people that feel uncomfortable about any change in their lives, even if it is for the better.

You then change tack and go after taxed, a commonwealth negative topic, and equate congestion to taxes.



And we end with a brilliant unrelated issuance.

Mike man, you have to work a bit more if you are going to slam something around here. Please bring up something that supports your arguments, or at least bring the tone down a few notches. You just seeded an argument, not a discussion! If you are not happy with it... Hmmm, what was that phrase?

Oh yeah:

"Live with it or leave."

Oh yeah, I hear the Iowa BBS's are LOVELY this time of year! ;)

[MikeW]

I wasn't aiming directly at you, but you're welcome. Feel free to stay on your side of the moat.

You left. You gave up your right to have a say. It sounds like London is more your speed anyway.

I lived in NYC during the bad old days. The 2200 murders a year. The drug dealers selling openly, even in good neighborhood. The hookers all over the place. Giulianni was exactly what NYC needed at the time he got elected. His problem is that, while he's great in a crisis, when there's no crisis, he doesn't know what to do with himself. He may be back though, and this time as President.


Thank you, Mike W, for reminding me just the sort of arrogance and willful ignorance, so endemic in New York, I left behind when i emmigrated to London. It makes me want to stay here even more . . .

You say you are tired of people moving to New York just to complain about the congestion, pollution, etc. I dont appreciate your assumption that i'm a foreigner and therefore do not appreciate new york for what it is. I grew up in New York and love it the way it used to be and the way it is now; thank you very much. That doesn't prevent me from seeing ways that it can be made to be better. And, would you seriously suggest that a greener city - healthier levels of pollution, safer streets, etc - would not be a better city?

I was never a supporter of Guiliani's whole "quality of life" campaign and the attitudes behind alot of his mostly white middle class supporters (thinking dirty streets and "broken windows" have anything to do with crime levels, etc.) But, please, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. All wealthy cities should seek to improve the quality of life for all their citizens - its just a matter of thinking about it in the right way - sensibly. A plan like congestion charging is a sensible way to get rid of some of the city's problems (just one: extraordinarily high asthma rates in children).

I will confess to one unrealistic fantasy of an improved quality of life in New York: to get rid of the rude, arrogant aspects of its culture. But then, what would people like you do with yourself then? Completely unworkable, isnt it.

[lofter1]

Feel free to stay on your side of the moat....

You left. You gave up your right to have a say.
Ahh, the voice of NY. I guess those concerns about NY getting too polite are misplaced.

[estryker]

The expression is "the pond." The Atlantic is not a Norman fortified castle, though I see you would prefer it were.

[milleniumcab]

If you build it, they will come. NYC has been built and they will come , no matter what...;)

[Marksix]

here in the UK the congestion charge is part of the "surveillance state" diligently being assembled by the government. It starts with your vehicle being "chipped" and ends with the interogation centres where you are to report to be photographed, finger printed, iris scanned, DNA taken, enrolled on a national identity register. This is the UK in 2006 and your government is watching closely.

For you it may start with your vehicle being chipped for congestion charging.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/090805getchipped.htm

[Ninjahedge]

Mark, the thing is the chipping should be voluntary just like it is for EZPass here in the states.

If you do NOT have it, you would have to either pay more if you drive in the restricted zones/times or get ticketed (which is the equivalent of paying more).

I do agree that chipping and tracking is a little scary and can be misused, but the arguement for this topic should never be all or nothing, but more of a compromise. If you go all or nothing, you end up with nothing a hell of a lot.

And MW, gee, your witicism about Washington Street knows no bounds. AAMOF, I am for the city building more garages, requiring stricter regulations for parking on new construction, and a change in how things are done in Hoboken in general. But your infantile comment about making a conjestion charge in a town that is barely bigger than the village is just plain silly.

Stay on topic and stop beating straw men.

[Marksix]

if you have the time, I would reccomend this book to anyone who wishes to educate themselves about RFID chips being used as the tech for congestion charging.

"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID"


here's a review:-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 18, 2006

"SPYCHIPS" AUTHORS WIN LYSANDER SPOONER AWARD
Named the Year's "Best Book on Liberty"

"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID" has been named winner of the 2006 Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty. The book paints a revealing picture of how organizations plan to use tiny computer chips connected to miniature antennas to track everyday objects -- and even people -- keeping close tabs on people's belongings and whereabouts.

"The Lysander Spooner Awards are our way of honoring and showing our appreciation to the writers, editors, researchers, and publishers who continue to advocate for freedom," said Kathleen Hiserodt, President of Laissez Faire Books, a division of a non-profit educational foundation established in 1972. "'Spychips' is a truly important book. I applaud the authors for bringing this vital information to the public, and I hope the book will mobilize readers to protect their privacy before it is too late."

Hiserodt's organization created the Lysander Spooner Awards in January 2004. The honor is given monthly to books that have made the greatest contribution to the literature of liberty. An annual winner is selected from 4 finalists chosen from the year's entries. The winning author (or authors, in this case) receives a cash prize of $1,500.

Other finalists for the 2006 prize were Thomas Sowell for "Black Rednecks and White Liberals," Geoffrey R. Stone for "Perilous Times," and Phil Valentine for "Tax Revolt."

"Just to be considered in the running with such amazing writers and thinkers is an honor in itself," McIntyre observes. "We hope this recognition will encourage others to read the book and counter attempts by global corporations and their pundits to downplay its importance."

"Spychips" has raised the hackles of companies like Procter & Gamble, Philips, Gillette, and IBM, who were understandably embarrassed to find their plans to track people with RFID technology laid out so vividly in the book's pages. The authors have called for consumers to avoid purchasing products from these and other RFID proponents, a strategy they hope will convince the retail Goliaths to take consumer privacy and civil liberties concerns seriously.

Increased attention to the book and its call for market-based consumer action comes at a particularly bad time for Wal-Mart, seen as the driving force behind broad-scale adoption of RFID. The Associated Press reports that the retail giant is cutting back on inventory in its stores as it "struggles with slowing sales and disappointing profit growth." In addition, Wal-Mart's stock price has fallen 6 percent during the past 12 months.

"Most people assume 'Spychips' is a book about technology, but this award recognizes it for what it really is: a book about liberty," says Albrecht. "It has has become a rallying point for consumers who are fed up with the erosion of their privacy and the encroaching surveillance society. Because RFID is a smoking gun, our book is a wake-up call to focus the energies of what is fast becoming a consumer revolution."

The Spooner Awards are named for the somewhat obscure 19th century jurist and author, Lysander Spooner. Best known for his work in the abolitionist movement, Spooner also earned acclaim for starting the first private postal service in the United States, challenging the government's monopoly on the mails and eventually forcing the Post Office to drastically reduce the price of postage.

Previous annual Spooner award winners include James Bovard for his book "Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil," and Randy Barnett for his book "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty."

ABOUT THE BOOK

"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID" (Nelson Current) was released in October 2005. Already in its fifth printing, "Spychips" is the winner of the Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and has received wide critical acclaim. Authored by Harvard doctoral researcher Katherine Albrecht and former bank examiner Liz McIntyre, the book is meticulously researched, drawing on patent documents, corporate source materials, conference proceedings, and firsthand interviews to paint a convincing -- and frightening -- picture of the threat posed by RFID.

Despite its hundreds of footnotes and academic-level accuracy, the book remains lively and readable according to critics, who have called it a "techno-thriller" and "a masterpiece of technocriticism."

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine Albrecht (kma@spychips.com) 877-287-5854
or
Liz McIntyre (liz@spychips.com) 877-287-5854

[Marksix]

Congestion Charging is but one strategy the UK government intends to implement throughout the UK to ease the problem of too many vehicles, too few roads. They intended to make public transport the more attractive alternative. However, in my city (Liverpool) we were at the point of constructing a tram network, to the extent that cables and drains had been diverted and the rails had already been delivered, when the government pulled the money and the plans had to be scrapped. They did this to several other cities too.

It was claimed that road charginging was simply a stealth tax which of course, the government denied citing that the money is to be put into public transport infrastructure but their cancelling of all tram schemes seems to put a lie to this. Watch out when US politicians are asking to impose road/congestion charges there.....

Also, it has been said that the monies set aside for tram schemes was diverted to London to pay for the Olympic Games.

As to inter city rail travel, if I wanted to travel Liverpool to London tomorrow, a distance of 200 miles the fare would be £220/$409 or £360/$670 first class (which includes a free cuppa tea). So, we drive everywhere 'cos even with petrol costing£0.96 a litre ( $9.75 per gallon) it's affordable.

[nick-taylor]

I didn't know that Marksix had copied and pasted the same bile, so here I go again:

First point: Although I believe that tram projects should go ahead, they should only go ahead as long as there is significant regeneration benefits. I've spent years over at SSC debating this and a few modifications could have been made to greatly increase the efficiency of the network. I bet that in the next few years they will be built.

The second is that there is no basis behind tram funds being diverted for London 2012 transport projects. People tend to forget that London is the fastest growing city in the UK, growing at the rate of another Leeds (pop 700,000) every 9 years, while transport in London was by the greatest under-funded in the post-WW2 years.

Thirdly, while you have opted for the most expensive and exclusive rail tickets on offer, you can travel between Liverpool Lime Street and London Euston and back again on the tilting Virgin Pendolino trains from £37.75 ($71.10).

[ryan]

We're all aware of the London thread, so why don't you keep those posts there. This thread should be about NYC.

[milleniumcab]

I agree , a big city should be noisy, congested and crowded but lately it has become a little too unmanagable, don't you think?... Cars seem to increase everyday by hundreds at a time, when streets can not even gain an inch... And by the way... If you want a city that does not need more revenues, maybe you should "move the hell to Iowa"...:p Any form of tax that serves a nobel purpose, as this one does, is welcomed in my opinion...
NYC especially Manhattan is supposed to be noisy, crowded, and congested. It has been for 250 years, an it's worked so far. If you want a quiet, sedate, traffic free lifestyle, move the hell to Iowa. I'm sick of people moving here, to be in the center of everything, then bitching about the noise, the traffic, and the construction. Live with it or leave.

As far as the revenue raising potential of this stupid idea, more revenue is the last think NYC needs. Money is to NYC what crack is to a crack addict. No matter how much it gets it needs more. This is the highest taxed locality in the United States. Why the hell should it need more revenue. What the city government needs to do is to figure out how to be efficient and live within it's current revenue structure, if not shrink it's expenses, and cut taxes. It could start by laying off 100,000 unnecessary city employees.

[milleniumcab]

:)))))))))))

Ahh, the voice of NY. I guess those concerns about NY getting too polite are misplaced.

[ABrett]

When the congestion charge was initially introduced in London it did cut down on traffic. Now, however, London is just as gridlocked as ever, particularly along the CC boundary roads. It is a ploy by the Mayor of London to fill his coffers.

[ablarc]

When the congestion charge was initially introduced in London it did cut down on traffic. Now, however, London is just as gridlocked as ever, particularly along the CC boundary roads. It is a ploy by the Mayor of London to fill his coffers.
What's your explanation for this? What's your evidence? Wouldn't raising the charge some more restore the former decongestion? What's wrong with a city having spending money?

[BPC]

This is Economics 101. If something is priced below market, then demand will overwhelm supply and shortages will result. That is what happened with the bread lines in the old USSR (where a loaf of bread was priced at a penny), and that is what is happening on Manhattan's streets (wherein car access is FREE). There is no magic here. If London's streets are still too gridlocked, then the congestion charge they set there is obviously still too low. You can also set the price too high, and demand will drop so much that revenues dwindle. (Think some of those $40 per hour midtown garages that sit empty.) As with everything else in life, there is a revenue-maximizing price for congestion charges at which the traffic will flow smoothly and the City's coffers will overflow. You find it through economic models and trial and error. The current situation, by contrast, benefits no one but a few people who bring their cars into the City for free, at the expense of all the rest of us, who bear the burden of the resulting gridlock.

[lofter1]

Coalition Unveils Traffic Relief Recommendations

ny1.com (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=64289)
November 14, 2006

A coalition of 125 New York City community groups says New Yorkers should pay for street parking and pay to drive in the most congested parts of the city.

They groups have come together to create the "Citywide Coalition for Traffic Relief" ( http://www.trafficrelief.org/ ) and today, they're unveiling their five point plan to improvement.

They call for a fundamental change in thinking, saying that streets shouldn't be designed to accommodate vehicle traffic, but instead, they should be designed to limit traffic and encourage the use of alternatives.

The coalition's main recommendations include:

> Create more protected areas for transit, walking and biking.

> Make people who park on the street pay more.

> Limit traffic in residential areas

> Reduce the impact of truck traffic

> They also suggest adopting a "congestion pricing" system like the one in London, where drivers who want to enter the busiest parts of the city are charged a toll.

Copyright © 2006 NY1 News

[lofter1]

Bigger Push for Charging Drivers
Who Use the Busiest Streets


nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/nyregion/24traffic.html)
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
November 24, 2006


Congestion pricing, the idea of charging drivers for bringing vehicles into the busiest parts of Manhattan, has become a kind of holy grail for transportation advocates and urban planners in New York — a coveted prize that has remained out of reach.


A year ago, officials from a prominent civic group floated a proposal to reduce traffic by levying a $7 fee on cars and trucks driving below 60th Street, but they found themselves treated not like visionary crusaders but like bird flu patients when policy makers at City Hall said very firmly that such a change was not on the mayor’s agenda for his second term.


Now a diverse array of civic and community groups — including such unlikely allies as conservative scholars and take-back-the-streets cycling advocates — are cautiously moving to raise the subject again in the hope of overcoming the resistance of New Yorkers and their political leaders. They are also hoping to influence a long-term strategic plan the city is preparing, which they expect will address traffic congestion.


“There are a number of groups, who come at this from very different perspectives, who don’t generally agree on a lot, who want to see this happen,” said Jeremy Soffin, vice president for public affairs of the Regional Plan Association, which studies transportation and development issues. “There’s been a concerted effort to work together and to make sure the timing is right to give this effort the best chance of happening.”


The question of timing is a delicate one because of what happened last November, when a congestion pricing proposal by the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, was described in an article in The New York Times.


The article appeared just three days after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg won re-election, and City Hall insiders were angry at what they perceived as the group’s attempt to push a politically volatile issue to the top of his agenda, according to people on both sides.


Chastened, the group quickly retreated and never issued a report it had prepared describing its plan.


“We were premature in terms of talking about the problem and potential solutions without thinking about how those might be implemented here in the metropolitan region and what that would take,” said Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the group. “It takes a lot of public buy-in, building consensus.”


Now, the group expects to release a revamped study in early December that will analyze the cost of clogged streets, estimated at $12 billion to $15 billion a year. A related study done with Environmental Defense, a national environmental group, will look at the environmental costs of excess traffic and at the potential for congestion pricing to reduce traffic and thereby cut air pollution and, as a result, illnesses like asthma.


The new approach is intended to encourage discussion, but it could also provide cover for any politicians, those at City Hall included, who may want to climb, ever so gingerly, on board.


Environmental Defense has gone so far as to hire the public relations and marketing firm Dan Klores Communications to help fashion a campaign that will spread the congestion pricing message.


Ms. Wylde plans to discuss the economic study at a forum on Dec. 7 sponsored by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research organization that is set to release a report of its own “on the feasibility of road pricing in New York.” The report is to include the results of focus groups meant to gauge the attitudes of New Yorkers toward such a program.


Some grass-roots groups have already begun to take up the issue.


On Nov. 14, about 50 people from a coalition of 125 civic and community groups gathered on the steps of City Hall to ask that Mayor Bloomberg consider a series of measures to reduce traffic.


The coalition is led by Transportation Alternatives, an organization that promotes mass transit and works to make streets more welcoming to pedestrians and cyclists. It includes neighborhood groups like Sustainable South Bronx and biking advocates like the FreeWheels Bicycle Defense Fund, which works to aid bicyclists arrested in the mass bike rides known as Critical Mass.


The coalition wants more speed bumps on neighborhood streets and a crackdown on illegal parking, but it also asks that the city study congestion pricing.


“That is the gorilla in the room and, among all the measures we’re discussing, it has the most potential for reducing traffic,” said Paul Steely White, the director of Transportation Alternatives.


He acknowledged that it would be a big change for drivers to pay to use streets that they are accustomed to using free and that there was a lot of political ground to cover first.


Mr. White said any congestion pricing program would have to be combined with — or preferably preceded by — other measures like improving bus service and smoothing traffic flow. His group has asked the city to move beyond what has already been done to reduce the number of parking permits given to city employees, who drive to work in large numbers. Transportation Alternatives would also like to see more Midtown parking spaces converted to loading zones so that streets are not clogged with double-parked trucks unloading goods.


Advocates of congestion pricing are reluctant to make specific proposals on how it could be carried out in New York, but they often point to London as an example of a successful program.


Championed by an activist mayor, London’s program began in early 2003 and has significantly reduced traffic and sped up bus lines. London drivers must pay as much as $19 a day to enter the road pricing zone in the city center. They can pay in a variety of ways, including online, by phone, by mail or at designated shops or gas stations. Cameras around the congestion zone read vehicle license plates and feed the numbers to a computer that checks to see who paid their fees. Those who have not paid can be fined.


The plan developed last year by the Partnership for New York City had similar elements, although some roadways, including the West Side Highway and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive, would have remained free.


One of the most outspoken opponents of congestion pricing in New York has been David I. Weprin, a City Council member who represents some neighborhoods in eastern Queens that are far from subway lines and where residents with jobs in Manhattan are more likely to drive to work.


He said congestion pricing amounted to an unfair tax on residents in those areas, many of whom can ill afford it.


“The potential for causing hardship to people who rely on their cars in boroughs other than Manhattan is too great to try to implement congestion pricing at this point,” Mr. Weprin said.


In response, advocates said revenue from a congestion pricing program should be reserved for public transportation improvements that would help the outer boroughs. For instance, if new or faster bus routes could bring residents into Manhattan or to subway stations more efficiently, they may be more willing to forgo driving. That would also help answer critics who have said congestion pricing is nothing more than a new tax that would go straight into the city’s general budget.


Most of all, the advocates of congestion pricing have their eyes on the long-term strategic plan for the city being prepared by Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff. The plan is a response to predictions that the city will add one million residents by 2025, and figuring out how to keep people and vehicles moving around an ever more crowded city will be an important part of it. The activists hope that it will include a recommendation for some form of congestion pricing.


Mr. Doctoroff refused to talk about what the plan would include, but he said he was aware that traffic is a concern.


“It’s clear the level of congestion is an inhibitor to growth,” Mr. Doctoroff said. “We believe that smart growth is good, and therefore we need to provide additional capacity on every mode of transportation.” That, he said, includes city streets, and he added, “How we do that, that’s what we’re thinking through now.”


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Strattonport]

Partnership Study Discovers $13+ Billion in Annual Costs to the Metro Region Economy Due to Traffic Congestion
Region Loses as Many as 52,000 Jobs Every Year

In a breakthrough study, the Partnership for New York City has identified more than $13 billion a year in losses to the New York Metropolitan Region’s economy that are a direct result of traffic congestion. The report issued by the Partnership today concludes that existing transportation and road systems are inadequate to accommodate the region's growing population and continued economic expansion, resulting in the loss of as many as 52,000 new jobs every year.


According to the Partnership, the traffic problem will only grow as Manhattan-bound traffic moving through the region increases by more than 20 percent over the next two decades.



“Busy streets are signs of our region’s economic health. But the level of traffic congestion in New York City has now passed the tipping point and is causing serious damage to virtually every community and industry sector,” said Partnership President and CEO Kathryn S. Wylde. “Left unchecked, excess congestion will stunt the economy’s capacity for sustained growth and innovation in the years ahead.”

For the report, Growth or Gridlock? The Economic Case for Traffic Relief and Transit Improvement for a Greater New York, the Partnership enlisted a team of private sector experts to explore the economic consequences of traffic congestion and the possible remedies. HDR Decision Economics and the PB Consult unit of Parsons Brinckerhoff provided major contributions to the report.

Findings of the Partnership study include:




The primary cause for traffic congestion across the city and the region is the density of economic activity in the Manhattan Central Business Districts, which drive a $901 billion regional economy.
3.6 million people travel into Manhattan south of 60th Street each weekday, a third of them in cars, trucks or taxis.
Delays endured by commuters, workers and other travelers annually cost some $5 billion to $6.5 billion in lost time and productivity and up to $2 billion in wasted fuel and other vehicle operating costs.
Traffic delays add to logistical, inventory and personnel costs that annually amount to an estimated $1.9 billion in additional costs of doing business and $4.6 billion in unrealized business revenue each year.
There is a net loss in regional economic output of at least $3.2 to $4 billion annually due to loss of productivity, with the greatest losses concentrated in Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island.
Other world cities, many of which are competitors with New York for business investment and job creation, are moving aggressively to reduce the burden that traffic places on economic activity.“Businesses, individuals and communities across New York City and the region suffer from through traffic that is trying to move toward or away from Manhattan’s super-charged center of commerce, tourism and dense residential activity,” Wylde said. “We must move quickly to consider all potential solutions and to ultimately adopt a comprehensive program of traffic relief and congestion management. The cost of doing nothing about the problem is simply too great for the city and the region.”

While the Partnership does not take a position in the report on how to solve the congestion problem, it seeks to make the case for the city to obtain available federal aid to undertake a comprehensive feasibility study of congestion-relief strategies, focusing on best practices around the world.

According to the Partnership report, potential options that merit further study include:


Better design and management of freight loading facilities;
Improved regulation and increased pricing for on-street parking;
New and upgraded bus, ferry and commuter rail services;
Charges for vehicle use of certain roads and for entry into highly congested zones.Although government is making improvements in mass transit, traffic management and parking regulation, excess congestion continues to grow. The historic response to heavy traffic— building new highways and road capacity—is not an option here,” Wylde concluded. “To maintain economic growth, we must examine all available remedies and tailor a solution that reflects the region’s complexity and is fair and practical for all New Yorkers.”

The Partnership’s full report is available on its web site at www.pfnyc.org (http://www.pfnyc.org/).

The Partnership for New York City (www.pfnyc.org) is a network of business leaders dedicated to enhancing the economy of the five boroughs of New York City and maintaining the city’s position as the global center of commerce, culture and innovation.


DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE! (http://www.nycp.org/publications/Growth%20or%20Gridlock.pdf)

[pianoman11686]

3.6 million people travel into Manhattan south of 60th Street each weekday, a third of them in cars, trucks or taxis.

The scary thing is, that is still a relatively small percentage compared to most other American cities.

I think the most pressing area to address is truck deliveries. A quick fix would be to restrict deliveries during the busiest times of the day, and have them do as much of their work as possible overnight. This would almost certainly have to include FedEx and UPS, as there are way too many of those around. They could learn a thing or two from DHL, which has an army of walking delivery men.

The longer term fix to consider would be to completely remove through-freight traffic from entering the city. A freight rail tunnel, with several depots strategically located near major highways and seaports, would do the trick, but the cost is prohibitive. Then again, when compared to how many billions of dollars the area loses each year, the cost over the long term may be a relative drop in the bucket.

[lofter1]

A quick fix would be to restrict deliveries during the busiest times of the day, and have them do as much of their work as possible overnight. This would almost certainly have to include FedEx and UPS ...

Oh, thanks for that brilliant idea ...

You expect me to wait up until all hours of the night for those guys to show up?

I don't get enough sleep as it is :mad:

[pianoman11686]

Have doormen sign for it. If your building doesn't have a doorman, have designated drop off/pick up areas.

[antinimby]

Mayor Says Fee on Peak Traffic Is Not Likely


By WILLIAM NEUMAN and DIANE CARDWELL
Published: December 5, 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/nyregion/05traffic.html)

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that it was unlikely that the State Legislature would allow the city to charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan as part of a congestion pricing plan similar to one used in London.

Mr. Bloomberg spoke after the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, released a study yesterday that measured the economic cost of traffic-clogged streets. The group called on government officials to consider a range of solutions including a program like the one in London, which has brought about significant traffic reductions by charging drivers a fee to enter the city center.

Mr. Bloomberg, who spoke to reporters during a visit to Florida, said that congestion pricing would likely be viewed as a kind of “commuter tax” and that made it “a nonstarter.”

“The politics of a commuter tax in Albany are probably such that we would never get it passed,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “And what I want to do is focus on those things that we can get passed to help our city.”

In characterizing congestion pricing as a commuter tax, the mayor may have been referring to an aspect of the London plan that gives discounts to people in the city center, shifting some of the cost to people in outlying areas.

But the mayor acknowledged that something needed to be done and said the city would consider congestion pricing as one alternative. “Do we have a congestion problem?” he said. “Absolutely. Is it expensive? Yes.”

The study said that extremely heavy traffic in New York reduces the productivity of workers and delays deliveries of goods and services throughout the metropolitan region. That drives up costs to businesses, cuts into their profits and keeps them from hiring more workers. The study estimated that excess traffic across the region results in at least 37,000 fewer jobs a year.

Kathryn S. Wylde, the president of the Partnership, said that before measures like congestion pricing were taken to discourage driving, bus and ferry service should be expanded to give more people an alternative to driving to work.

She urged the officials to study ways to cut traffic, including congestion pricing and increased parking meter rates.

Ms. Wylde said that heavy traffic had a ripple effect across the region, increasing travel times from the suburbs and increasing business costs there as well.

“Excess congestion has a regional impact, not just in New York City,” Ms. Wylde said. “I am hopeful that legislative representatives in New York and New Jersey will look at this with fresh eyes and with a fresh attitude.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

Report from The Manhattan Institute:

Battling Traffic: What New Yorkers Think About Road Pricing (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/rdr_03.pdf)

[Eugenious]

This is another one of those "what if" ideas that gets talked about for 100 years. Instead of these endless studies and reports why dont they just take a highly congested area like Times Sq between 46-40 st from 6-7th avenues and try this out for a period of 3 weeks or so and see if it produces a huge outcry from the public (which I suspect will love it once they see the benefit).

Traffic has no place in Times Square anyway, if you want to drive through Times Sq get your check book out buddy.

[Edward]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/nyregion/12traffic.html
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: January 12, 2007

It’s a common enough thought among city drivers inching through traffic: Everyone around me came from the suburbs, making my life miserable. But it’s wrong, because more than half the drivers who crowd into Manhattan each workday come from the five boroughs.

That is only one fact about traffic in New York City that may surprise some people. For example, 35 percent of government workers drive to work, many because they have free parking. Also, one in five drivers entering the busiest parts of Manhattan are only passing through, on their way somewhere else.

Finally, many drivers say that they simply prefer the convenience and solitude of their own vehicles and have found ways to get around the worst congestion.

By examining a wealth of data collected by government agencies, a detailed and often surprising portrait of traffic in New York City emerges.

“There’s a lot of myths, and when you look at the data, the myths go pop, pop, pop, one by one,” said Bruce Schaller, a transportation consultant who has studied regional traffic patterns.

Traffic, and competing proposals for what to do about it, will probably receive more attention in the coming months as the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg creates a plan to accommodate the city’s expected growth over the next 25 years of one million more residents, many of them with cars.

“The fascinating thing about traffic,” Mr. Schaller said, “is there are so many different strands.”

One of the most prevalent beliefs to crumble beneath the data might be called the suburban myth, the notion that suburbanites make up a majority of the commuters who drive to work in Manhattan.

Census data show that more city residents than suburbanites drive to work in Manhattan every day, according to Mr. Schaller. He estimated that 263,000 people in 19 counties in and around New York City drive regularly to jobs in Manhattan below 60th Street. Of those, 53 percent, or 141,000, live in the five boroughs, Mr. Schaller said. The greatest numbers are from Queens, with 51,300, and Brooklyn, with 33,400. About 23,900 auto commuters live in Manhattan, while 17,400 are from the Bronx and 15,200 from Staten Island. The suburban area with the most auto commuters to Manhattan is Nassau County, with 22,091 people driving to work in the borough, followed by Bergen County, with 19,975.

When plotted on a map, the data make a striking picture, showing that some of the densest concentrations of auto commuters are from the outer fringes of Queens and Brooklyn, where access to subways is limited.

“The concentration of auto commuters is in areas that don’t have direct subway service,” Mr. Schaller said. “So the travel time advantage of driving is greater than it is in the rest of the city.”

That applies to Dennis Alicea, of Bayside, Queens. Mr. Alicea, a banker for JPMorgan Chase & Company, drives from Bayside to Manhattan, where he first takes his daughter to school on the East Side. Then he leaves his car at a lot, which charges early arrivals about $10 a day for parking, and takes a bus to his office in Midtown. He said he typically arrives at work about one hour after leaving home.

To commute on public transportation, Mr. Alicea, 38, would have to take a bus from his home to the Long Island Rail Road station at Bayside, ride a train to Pennsylvania Station, then take a subway back to the East Side. “You have to go into a stuffy, overcrowded train with people with attitudes,” he said. “I prefer driving for the peace of mind. It’s much easier.”

An annual survey conducted by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, an association of government agencies involved in transportation planning, recorded 810,000 vehicles (not including buses) entering Manhattan below 60th Street on a single weekday in 2003. That figure has increased fairly steadily over the years, largely in line with changes in the city’s economy and population. The 2003 count was 6 percent greater than 1993, when 760,000 vehicles were recorded, and 24 percent greater than 1978, when there were 649,000.

The number dropped after the terror attack in 2001 but has been rising since. Partial data released from the 2004 count show a total of 815,000 vehicles entering the area of Manhattan covered by the survey.

This data help bust another myth. “A lot of people say, ‘It’s those Jersey drivers,’ ” said Jeffrey M. Zupan, a senior fellow for transportation at the Regional Plan Association, a group that studies development and transportation issues. “But when you look at the numbers, the Long Island sector is by far the largest sector where cars are coming from into the city.”

According to the 2003 data, 110,000 vehicles entered Manhattan through the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels the day the survey was taken. An additional 63,000 were recorded driving south on the West Side Highway, and perhaps half of those might be considered to have come from New Jersey, across the George Washington Bridge, Mr. Zupan said.

Many other vehicles entering from the north come from a more dispersed area, including the Bronx, several northern counties and Connecticut. The largest number of vehicles, however — 326,000, or 40 percent of the total — entered Manhattan over the East River crossings, with their drivers mostly from Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island.

Mr. Schaller uses data from a computer model developed by the transportation council to estimate that about 80 percent of the vehicles in the hub-bound tally had destinations within the Manhattan core.

The model therefore suggests that almost one-fifth of the vehicles that entered Manhattan in the 2003 count, or about 156,000, were just passing through the borough. For many drivers, Manhattan is simply a place between here and there.

“The shortest way, distance-wise, is always to go through Manhattan,” said Erick Lawson, a commercial diver who lives in Somerset, N.J., and frequently works on underwater construction jobs in Queens or on Long Island.

Early in the day, he often enjoys a smooth drive, well before the morning rush, through the Lincoln Tunnel and across 34th Street to the Midtown Tunnel. His homebound trip is a different story.

“It’s almost always a disaster,” Mr. Lawson said, explaining that he frequently drives home across the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and through Staten Island to avoid Midtown.

Mr. Zupan pointed to data that show that while the overall number of vehicles entering during a 24-hour period has generally been rising, the number of vehicles entering from 7 to 10 a.m. has remained fairly steady.

“You can’t squeeze any more vehicles between 7 and 10 on the bridges and tunnels,” he said. “So that’s constant and the growth we’ve seen is in off-peak travel.”

John Lane, 26, a tattoo artist who lives in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, typically waits until after 11 a.m. to drive his 1963 Buick Skylark to work at Cutting Edge Body Arts in the West Village.

His routine allows him to skip the morning rush and arrive just as street-cleaning restrictions expire, so it is easy to park. He said his half-hour trip would take about the same time on the subway, but he prefers his car. “I like to be in my own environment,” Mr. Lane said.

A study conducted last year for the Partnership for New York City, a business group, cited 2000 census data that showed about 35 percent of government workers in Manhattan drive to work, compared with 14 percent for those who work in finance. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president of the group, said that many city workers drive because they can park at no charge using parking placards obtained through their agencies.

The morning rush is dominated by cars carrying people to their jobs. But later in the day, the mix of vehicles on the streets of Manhattan includes more drivers who venture out for other reasons.

Andrea Hirshman lives in Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn, and she often drives her Mazda minivan into Manhattan to go to the theater, meet friends for dinner, attend events at her son’s high school on East 29th Street, or visit her mother in Kips Bay. She lives a short walk from the subway but nearly always prefers to drive.

“In the end you usually find that when you’ve finished what you’re doing you have your car and you can zip home,” said Ms. Hirschman, 49. “You have much more mobility and I like it.”

[MikeW]

I heard about that study on the radio this morning This is why there will never be a congestion charge in Manhattan, and likely never tolls on the bridges that don't have them now. There are a lot of drivers in the outer boroughs, they like the ability to drive to Manhattan for free, and they have enough political impact that the politicians don't want to piss them off.

[TonyO]

^ Maybe so, but it sure would be a smart thing to get those government employees in trains and sell their parking spots to paying commuters.

[Ninjahedge]

Thing is, that is one of the perks for working for the trans authority.

I would say the first step would simply to be to put a toll on all water crossings. Queensborough, Manhattan and Brooklyn being the three outstanding crossings. Make them pay and you will see a dip, especially if the toll is either less during off-peak, or simply only during rush.

The next thing would be to provide some park-and-rides on the subway express stops at the outskirts of the city. Give these people a place to put their car at the end of the F line. Don't think that they will park just anywhere. You have to give them an access point to an express line. This will set up a buffer zone.

Then, lastly, woudl be the congestion pricing. I think all three in combination would work great, but you should do things one at a time and let people get over it. Bridge tolls probably being the easiest to enact, then purchase and construction of garages, then congestion charge.

Just find out where the cars start moving slowly during rush and find some way to make that as far as they need to go using them!

[MikeW]

I don't even disagree with you. I just don't think it's going to happen.


^ Maybe so, but it sure would be a smart thing to get those government employees in trains and sell their parking spots to paying commuters.

[MikeW]

See, you're stuck right there. Before this happens, the hew and cry from the outer boroughs drives the politicians to block the tolls.


I would say the first step would simply to be to put a toll on all water crossings. Queensborough, Manhattan and Brooklyn being the three outstanding crossings. Make them pay and you will see a dip, especially if the toll is either less during off-peak, or simply only during rush.

[ablarc]

“In the end you usually find that when you’ve finished what you’re doing you have your car and you can zip home,” said Ms. Hirschman, 49. “You have much more mobility and I like it.”
You always have to come back to where you left your car. You can't just pop into whatever subway station is near where you end your wanderings.

[Strattonport]

See, you're stuck right there. Before this happens, the hew and cry from the outer boroughs drives the politicians to block the tolls.

Then more needs to be done to explain that congestion pricing is more than just a "toll."

The funds will be used to improve mass transit like increasing service or extending subway lines, or even speeding up the BRT plan the MTA is currently doing to make it more of an incentive to to take mass transit. It will invariably reduce the number of people who drive so the remaining number who do can think of it as a "premium." There's less traffic on the road so that translates into a faster drive. Less traffic also means faster deliveries and less fees charged on lateness. Quality of life will improve with less air pollution and child asthma rates will fall. I'd think all of this would show that congestion pricing is more than "just a toll."

[Ninjahedge]

Stratton, I kind of agree with him on that. No matter if the toll cures cancer and infertility, people will still see it as more money, and EVERYONE resists that.

What I would try to do right up front is separate toll monies from the others. Make it so that bridge and tunnel fees are used EXCLUSIVELY for the care, maintenance and improvement of the bridges and tunnels themselves.

Raise/lower them as needed in order to reach a balance point, but keep the association direct. If people not only feel, but know that their money is being used to keep the very bridge they use open for them, they will be less likely to complain (especially if their taxes are now used for other things).

The hardest things in regulation reform are usually the psychological import on the people, not the actual logistics of implementation and sustainment.

[New Yorker 06]

Great idea!

But I think it should be expanded to include tourists, especially those standing in the way, in the middle of the sidewalk. Fine for gawking: $250

[ZippyTheChimp]

Traffic Tsar Candidates Have Vastly Differing Visions

BY ANNIE KARNI - Special to the Sun
March 14, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/50414

The two candidates Mayor Bloomberg is vetting to head the city's Department of Transportation stand poles apart on how to address the city's transportation woes.

Transit experts are touting one of the candidates, Janette Sadik-Khan, 46, a senior vice president at the engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff, as the more progressive choice, saying she would focus on expanding mass transit options rather than making streets more accommodating of vehicles.

Her competitor, Michael Horodniceanu, 62, a former transportation department traffic chief under Mayor Dinkins with close professional ties to Commissioner Iris Weinshall's administration, is widely viewed as the candidate who would stay with what critics have called the overly cautious and car-friendly course Ms. Weinshall has pursued over the past seven years.

In the next few weeks, Mr. Bloomberg will make his choice between what experts termed a "people-first" and a "car-first" traffic chief.

"If the mayor is creative enough to pick someone like Janette, it sends a message that he wants to have a legacy in taming city traffic," the chief attorney of the Straphangers Campaign, Gene Russianoff, said.

"The right commissioner could do a lot more for pedestrians and bus riders and really turn the agency into a planning, not a traffic engineering, agency," the executive director of Transportation Alternatives, Paul Steely White, said. "Transit-oriented development is Janette's calling card."

Ms. Sadik-Khan's biggest asset, according to transit experts, is her ability to pull in big federal dollars to fund local transit projects. She oversaw a $4 billion capital budget when she worked for the Federal Department of Transportation.

Mr. Horodniceanu's background, in contrast, is in traffic engineering. Transit experts say he would be more likely to focus on how to move traffic, not people, through the city. Mr. Horodniceanu earned a doctorate in traffic engineering, and currently runs the architecture and planning firm Urbitran.

Both candidates are expected to support the mayor on congestion pricing, a scheme under which drivers would be charged a fee to use the city's most congested streets during peak hours. Mr. Bloomberg has said it is one option New York must consider to deal with traffic levels that are damaging to the city's economy.

Ms. Sadik-Khan was considered for the commissioner post in 2000, when Ms. Weinshall was appointed by Mayor Giuliani — some say because of her political connections (she is married to Senator Schumer). Ms. Sadik-Khan was also one of Governor Spitzer's top candidates to head the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, sources said, a position to which Elliot Sander was ultimately appointed.

With a new commissioner, "We hope for increased regional cooperation on transit and traffic projects, especially in securing federal funding for priority projects," the president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, Kathryn Wylde, said. She listed those priorities as increased ferry service, park and ride facilities connected to express buses, and bus rapid transit lanes.

As she prepares to leave local politics on April 13 to assume a position at the City University of New York, Ms. Weinshall responded yesterday to criticism that the transportation department under her leadership has dragged its feet in encouraging mass transit projects.

Ms. Weinshall told The New York Sun yesterday that her department studied 130 different communities in its quest to determine which neighborhoods would best be served by the faster bus lanes, known as bus rapid transit. "If the critics have a problem with that, I'm sorry," she said. "But I'd rather be more comprehensive and inclusive than have the argument with people about why we didn't look at their communities."

Ms. Weinshall's parting advice to her successor: "You're serving all five boroughs. Each borough has distinct geography, concerns, and issues. There's no cookie cutter approach."

Ms. Sadik-Khan and Mr. Horodniceanu declined to comment for this article.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://nymag.com/

Dan Doctoroff Issues Vague Call for Bold Sacrifice

A city planning guru dropped hints Monday that Team Bloomberg might be considering "congestion pricing" to charge drivers for the privilege of adding to gridlock, and today Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff — the chief planning guru — did nothing to discourage the speculation. Speaking at the annual meeting of the New York Metropolitcan Transportation Council, a regional body that coordinates federal transportation funds, Doctoroff talked of needing "a shift in the way we use automobiles" and called "congestion — road, transit and pedestrian" the city's main barrier to growth. He also noted that taxes and user fees funded the 1811 street grid, the dedication of Central Park, and the city's water network. "Those who benefit should pay," he said. Was he hinting at a new fee on driving or cars? Providing political cover for an MTA fare increase? Telling the suburban county chiefs in attendance to look out for a commuter tax? It remains to be seen. But he did promise to issue the mayor's sustainability plan in early April, just before tax time. —Alec Appelbaum

[MikeW]

If they try and do this, the hue and cry from the boroughs, and their councilcritters will squash this soundly. Remember how they tried to (and actually did for while) impose Sunday meter rules? The same thing will happen, only it wouldn't get as far.

[ablarc]

Bloomberg to propose congestion charge: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/04/20/PM200704203.html

[MidtownGuy]

Hooray! I really hope this becomes a reality. There will be stiff opposition, but it's the right thing to do.

[ablarc]

Hooray! I really hope this becomes a reality. There will be stiff opposition, but it's the right thing to do.
Shoulda done it ages ago.

[BrooklynRider]

I'm 100% for it. One needs only look around to see all the single riders in the SUV's. I'm not saying they shouldn'r be allowed to drive in NY. I do think that they ought to pay through the nose to do it. All fees should be dedicated to mass transit improvements.

[TexxiNYC]

There is a scheme which can solve many of NYC's congestion problems. It is called Texxi.

http://www.texxi.info (http://www.texxi.info/)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/07/texting_sms_for.html (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/07/texting_sms_for.html)
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003791.html
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003216.html

What is Texxi
Texxi is a Demand Responsive Transit (DRT) Brokerage System, enabling dynamic ride-matching and customer aggregation in real-time using users' mobile phones as system interaction interfaces. It is also an Energy Efficient Transport System as well as a de facto Carbon Exchange.

It allows users to text their travel requests to a central system using their mobile phones and be aggregated into a vehicle which can fulfil their transport request with other travellers who have compatible itineraries.
A Texxi scheme requires only marketing investment, which can be recouped from profit share from the scheme itself. No additional infrastructure is needed to be built. Existing mobile phones and vehicles can be used from day one.

Later more complexity and additional features can be added to the system as mandated by the needs of the local community a particular Texxi scheme serves.

White Papers
------------------
1. The Demand Responsive Transit Exchange
2. Demand Responsive Transit Brokerages
3. Market Makers & Liquidity in Demand Responsive Transit Markets
4. Ride Insurance: Derivative Contracts and Secondary Markets on Demand Responsive Transit Exchanges

The Demand Responsive Transit Exchange
A Demand Responsive Transit Exchange (DRTE) will allow people to effectively access transportation resources more readily than currently occurs. It is based on the idea of a stock exchange where an intermediary (the exchange) allows buyers and sellers to trade in a transparent market. Imagine if you could, by using SMS, obtain point to point transport (shared or private) for a fixed, predictable cost. This is the core concept behind Texxi (www.texxi.com) (http://www.texxi.com)/). Such a scheme will be a de-facto carbon exchange.
Additionally, such a conceptual framework will contribute to the resolution of problems of
· Carbon Emissions
· Air, noise and visual pollution from roads and traffic
· Overbuilding of road and reducing greenspace
· Gridlock and extreme traffic congestion
· Road Maintenance
· Social Exclusion
· Bad infrastructure design, planning and implementation

The key concept behind the whole DRTE model is one of broking – find users who need a product/service and put them in touch with suppliers who supply that product/service. The exchange makes its money by subscriptions from the suppliers and by taking a small slice of every transaction carried out on the part of the user.

The implementation of such a Texxi Cloud in an Urban environment calls for a radical and necessary overhaul of taxi laws. Why are there actually Taxi companies, Bus Companies or Airport Transfer Companies? Why not simply "Transit Companies" which can run any type of vehicle as long as the relevant licenses are in place.

What a DRTE exchange will create is a mechanism for any and all transit companies to compete fairly in a transparent and open way, much in the same way as a stock exchange works. The immediate benefits to this are a reduction of the lack of service exhibited in too many cities by sated monopolistic providers.
Chief Executives of Cities need to face up to the reality that by far the single biggest obstacle to city growth and harmony are taxi monopolies. Once the provision of taxi services is handled in a way which doesn’t differentiate between taxis, buses, carpools or later, even rail service providers.

The Role of the DRT Broker.
Once an exchange exists in a city, there will be the ability for anyone to apply for a Broker License – much in the same way as a real-estate broker is regulated. Brokers will exist to prevent monopolies forming which would limit the choice consumers have when it comes to choosing a transit provider. Brokers would be required to maintain detailed records of whatever trips they have packaged for users and transit companies.

The success of a broker will thus lie in his/her ability to find the best priced trips available from the myriad transit providers. More importantly, there will be a significant economic incentive for brokers to identify the most efficient ways to move the most people in the most comfortable manner so as to ensure future repeat business.

From the fees brokers and transit providers pay to the exchange, a fund for insuring the transit operators can be funded. This will be a "taxi drivers benevolent fund" which will allow drivers with provable illnesses to be compensated while they are off the road, provided they have paid their insurance premium.

[clubBR]

Any congestion going into downtown is fine. But keep uptown the same and we'll have no problems.

[MikeW]

I'm quoting myself here because Bloomie pulled the trigger on the proposal, and all the outer borough politicians are lining up against it.


If they try and do this, the hue and cry from the boroughs, and their councilcritters will squash this soundly. Remember how they tried to (and actually did for while) impose Sunday meter rules? The same thing will happen, only it wouldn't get as far.

[ryan]

Nobody likes change, but there's so much inertia - and London is a great example - that I think there's a real possibility that this could become real. The pols have to make noise.

[Eugenious]

I'm quoting myself here because Bloomie pulled the trigger on the proposal, and all the outer borough politicians are lining up against it.

Bloomberg has to come out guns blazing, I believe majority of the people who live in the boroughs would support this. We have to do something here because this isn't going to go away and we need extra sources of revenue for transit system expansion.

I think if the city does nothing the costs in the future are going to be much higher then this congestion fee.

[MidtownGuy]

One needs only look around to see all the single riders in the SUV's

Thank you, BrooklynRider, because this really infuruates me. I've seen it time and time again... one driver in a huge vehicle, usually gabbing on a cell phone, as they inch through an intersection on a yellow-turned-red light and bully there way through a crowd of pedestrians. With a look of annoyance on their faces.:rolleyes:

The fee should be even higher than whatever they've proposed, and I'd like to see them ban single driver vehicles, in midtown especially, making certain logical exceptions.

[Ninjahedge]

Thank you, BrooklynRider, because this really infuruates me. I've seen it time and time again... one driver in a huge vehicle, usually gabbing on a cell phone, as they inch through an intersection on a yellow-turned-red light and bully there way through a crowd of pedestrians. With a look of annoyance on their faces.:rolleyes:

I See it every single day. The fee should be even higher than whatever they've proposed, and I'd like to see them ban single driver vehicles, in midtown especially, making certain logical exceptions.

Well, there are some things we agree on!!!

This is an elected mode of transportation. If you choose to drive in instead of park-and-ride or anything else, you should have to pay.

The less elective traffic we have on the roads, the faster the delivery trucks can make their routes, and the less money, over all, they spend in transit in NYC.

Also, increasing congestion charges may also help do things like alleviate the incredibly high parking taxes. Find a way to shift the parking off the streets in general. This may not be the best way, but anything that would make it easier to get around in the city would be welcomed!

[MikeW]

I think your wrong. I think there's already significant opposition in the boroughs. Weprin and Weiner have already denounced it (and we know Weiner is prepare a run for Mayor next time around). I think you'll see alot of the Council going against it, especially from the outer outer boroughs (Eastern Queens / Brooklyn, Northern Bx, all of Staten Island.)

Not to mention, it would have to be approved at the state level, and I really don't see the state senate going long. It might not even get much support in the assembly, if the assembly type persons from the boroughs and the inner ring 'burbs start hearing it from their constituents.

I see this as a political dead issue. This will go down like the west side stadium (which, incidently, had more merit than this nonsense).


Bloomberg has to come out guns blazing, I believe majority of the people who live in the boroughs would support this. We have to do something here because this isn't going to go away and we need extra sources of revenue for transit system expansion.

I think if the city does nothing the costs in the future are going to be much higher then this congestion fee.

[MikeW]

Actually, taxis and trucks have much more of a impact that single passenger private cars.


Thank you, BrooklynRider, because this really infuruates me. I've seen it time and time again... one driver in a huge vehicle, usually gabbing on a cell phone, as they inch through an intersection on a yellow-turned-red light and bully there way through a crowd of pedestrians. With a look of annoyance on their faces.:rolleyes:

The fee should be even higher than whatever they've proposed, and I'd like to see them ban single driver vehicles, in midtown especially, making certain logical exceptions.

[Ninjahedge]

Actually, taxis and truck much much more of a impact that single passenger private cars.

Yes, they do. But you pay for that directly. It is like taxing an industry. There will still eb a lot of traffic, but ones that are specifically for either transporting goods or people around the city.

You will not need as many parking spots, and tehre will be less traffic getting into and out of the city.

The only other thing they ned to start looking at would be tolls on the other bridge crossings into Manhattan. They will not be met with any praise UNLESS they actually provide something that the people want OR avoid something that they don't want even more...

Finding those "other" things would be the hard part....

[Strattonport]

Actually, taxis and truck much much more of a impact that single passenger private cars.

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04_16/.resized/.resized_400x251_flux1.jpg (http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04_16/.resized/.resized_400x251_flux1.jpg)

Report (http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/CITYinFLUX.pdf)
Streetsblog entry (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/19/schaller-profiles-a-city-in-flux/)
(http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04_16/.resized/.resized_400x251_flux1.jpg)

[Schadenfrau]

I'm not sure exactly where the opposition to this would be coming from. Who, exactly, drives to work in Manhattan? It's certainly not any working class people from the outer boroughs.

[Ninjahedge]

I'm not sure exactly where the opposition to this would be coming from. Who, exactly, drives to work in Manhattan? It's certainly not any working class people from the outer boroughs.

The key here is Schade, whether the proposals opponents can convince the people in the outer boroughs that it will somehow cost them something when it might actually save them money....

[MikeW]

One, you'd probably be suprised how many. Two, there's another factor here. This has to be approved at the state level, and there are lots of people from the Island and Westchester who drive in.


I'm not sure exactly where the opposition to this would be coming from. Who, exactly, drives to work in Manhattan? It's certainly not any working class people from the outer boroughs.

[MikeW]

The question is how do you define impact. If your talking total miles, that includes off hour driving which really isn't the focus. During the day during the week, the commericial vehicle numbers are going to be much higher.

Also, cars build during the last ten years emit so much less polution than they use to that they have a vastly diminished effect on air quality, especially compared to the diesel engines in trucks.


http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04_16/.resized/.resized_400x251_flux1.jpg (http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04_16/.resized/.resized_400x251_flux1.jpg)

Report (http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/CITYinFLUX.pdf)
Streetsblog entry (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/19/schaller-profiles-a-city-in-flux/)

[Schadenfrau]

One, you'd probably be suprised how many. Two, there's another factor here. This has to be approved at the state level, and there are lots of people from the Island and Westchester who drive in.

Really? How many in both cases?

[ryan]

Seems to me that the most effected will be the lower-middle class tools driving out to clubs and bars. boo hoo.

[Ninjahedge]

Actually ryan, I sympathise with your view on that, but most congestion charges do not occur at times when the LMC would be going to the bars....


Sarcasm appreciated, but a little blind-shot.....

[Eugenious]

Seems to me that the most effected will be the lower-middle class tools driving out to clubs and bars. boo hoo.

See this is the kind of clueless attitude I'm talking about.

a. This charge will only be in effect on weekdays during peak times (at first)
b. If you are already paying tolls this will be taken into account, for example if you paid 5$ for GW bridge you will only pay 8-5=3$.
c. People who drive out to bars in the city should be locked up for drinking and driving
d. You have to pay how many tolls to get into the city? Why doesnt anyone have a problem with that? This will impact people who can afford it, otherwise they wouldn't be driving in the city in the first place.

thanks

[ZippyTheChimp]

The question is how do you define impact. If your talking total miles, that includes off hour driving which really isn't the focus. The focus of a congestion charge would be from 6AM to 6PM.

So, how are you defining impact? Do you think the percentage is much different during the target hours? It might actually be greater.

There is an impression that the streets are mostly filled with cabs. That's because they're all the same color. If you made all private cars yellow, the perception might be different.

[Schadenfrau]

You have to pay how many tolls to get into the city? Why doesnt anyone have a problem with that?

It doesn't bother me because, for the most part, I think people should be taking public transportation into Manhattan, anyway.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You have to pay how many tolls to get into the city? Why doesnt anyone have a problem with that?Not necessarily.

No tolls on East River crossings.


Census data show that more city residents than suburbanites drive to work in Manhattan every day, according to Mr. Schaller. He estimated that 263,000 people in 19 counties in and around New York City drive regularly to jobs in Manhattan below 60th Street. Of those, 53 percent, or 141,000, live in the five boroughs, Mr. Schaller said. The greatest numbers are from Queens, with 51,300, and Brooklyn, with 33,400

When plotted on a map, the data make a striking picture, showing that some of the densest concentrations of auto commuters are from the outer fringes of Queens and Brooklyn, where access to subways is limited.

According to the 2003 data, 110,000 vehicles entered Manhattan through the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels the day the survey was taken.

The largest number of vehicles, however — 326,000, or 40 percent of the total — entered Manhattan over the East River crossings, with their drivers mostly from Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/12/nyregion/trafficlarge.jpg

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/nyregion/12traffic.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=010e25f6264729ff&ex=1326258000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

[MikeW]

Cabs are pretty much a constant. Trucks aren't. There are many more trucks during the day on weekdays then off hours or weekends. Also, from a congestion standpoint, trucks are much bigger, and jam things up that much more. Then again we probably need the stuff in the trucks.

Conversely, you get a large amount of passenger car B&T recreational traffic at night and/or on the weekends.

If you want to limit midday congestion, I think you need to analyze the traffic on the roads at that time.


The focus of a congestion charge would be from 6AM to 6PM.

So, how are you defining impact? Do you think the percentage is much different during the target hours? It might actually be greater.

There is an impression that the streets are mostly filled with cabs. That's because they're all the same color. If you made all private cars yellow, the perception might be different.

[MikeW]

Thanks Zippy. I missed that article.


Not necessarily.

No tolls on East River crossings.



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/12/nyregion/trafficlarge.jpg

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/nyregion/12traffic.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=010e25f6264729ff&ex=1326258000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

[Ninjahedge]

Cabs are pretty much a constant. Trucks aren't. There are many more trucks during the day on weekdays then off hours or weekends. Also, from a congestion standpoint, trucks are much bigger, and jam things up that much more. Then again we probably need the stuff in the trucks.

Conversely, you get a large amount of passenger car B&T recreational traffic at night and/or on the weekends.

If you want to limit midday congestion, I think you need to analyze the traffic on the roads at that time.

Trucks also carry much moe than one person on his way to work.

Also, with increased costs of transport, companies will try to make their routes into and out of the city more efficient.

Yes trucks contribute more to pollution, but so do busses. But I would rather have trucks and busses (actually transporting people and goods) than personal vehicles.

The livery cabs have to be the weirdest ones though. Parked along any side road they can squeeze onto waiting for their next call. They have to start making some rules to make it so that these guys can't be all over the place blocking the sidestreets!

[MikeW]

No. They'll just raise shipping prices, which will be passed along to the consumer.


<snip>
Also, with increased costs of transport, companies will try to make their routes into and out of the city more efficient.

<snip>

[Ninjahedge]

No. They'll just raise shipping prices, which will be passed along to the consumer.

They will do both.

Thing is, if there is less congestion, the cost in gas, and man power hours will go down if they can get in and around faster.

They will up the prices because of the charge at first, but then leave them like that even if they save money in the long run.

Capitalism is great sometimes, ain't it?

[MidtownGuy]

Zippy posted:

There is an impression that the streets are mostly filled with cabs. That's because they're all the same color. If you made all private cars yellow, the perception might be different.

Absolutely true. My windows look down onto Lexington Avenue. There are almost always more private cars than cabs. I just got up from my chair, went over to the window and looked down onto the rush-hour gridlock.
In a one block section, I counted:

25 vehicles:

5 of them yellow taxis.
2 buses (one city, one charter)
1 limo
2 delivery trucks(one florist, one DHL)
15 private vehicles

It's bumper to bumper, so plenty of time to count.

*Right now, I can hear someone down there honking their horn like a maniac*

[macreator]

Living on First Avenue in Midtown, I am in total support of congestion pricing. 1st Avenue is a bumper-to-bumper mess during rush hour as vehicles line up to get to the Queensboro Bridge (no toll). And while there are some trucks and buses present, the vast majority of the morons outside honking (and blocking the box I might add) are private vehicles.

[UnknownGirl]

The way I see it, while the congestion charge could do some good, it seems like most of its benefits could be more easily and fairly achieved by other means. For example, I agree that traffic is horrendous because of the lack of tolls at the 59th Street bridge. However, rather than create a giant, global toll, wouldn't it be simpler to just make the 59th Street bridge a toll bridge? Maybe even make it cost slightly more than, say, the Triboro, because it does lead directly to midtown. Or, to relieve the congestion caused by too many cars, I second the idea of banning single-occupant vehicles, except in--as someone said--certain logical cases. Or perhaps we could institute a fee of some sort for single-ocupant vehicles, either an extra toll (yes, I know it would be hard to target only SOVs, but we have HOV lanes, right?), or a permit of some type that people could buy if they expected to frequently be in a SOV (like a parking permit, or the yearly decal that you can buy in lieu of paying single-trip tolls on the Long Beach bridge).

For the record, so that everyone can see where I'm coming from, here it is:
I live in Queens, but visit Manhattan frequently (approx. 1/week).
I don't personally drive.
I frequently get driven places by other people.
I and the people I ride with are low enough on the economic ladder that we almost always use the 59th Street bridge, regardless of where we're going.
I know someone who drives in the city frequently, alone, for business, who I think should be permitted to continue, but also that he should be charged for the privelege.

[BPC]

The traffic problem is a little bigger than the Queensborough Bridge.

[clubBR]

Maybe even make it cost slightly more than, say, the Triboro, because it does lead directly to midtown.
You cant toll the Qboro bridge because it doesnt lead to any highway. People take the Queensboro because they know the cost of no tolls is the traffic lights along Queens Blvd.
duh

[UnknownGirl]

The traffic problem is a little bigger than the Queensborough Bridge.

Obviously. I mean, I would hope so! If it were that simple, it would have been fixed years ago. I meant that a set of individual changes, like tolling the Queensborugh Bridge, banning one-occupant vehicles, etc., might work better than an overall congestion charge, which I don't think will make as big a difference as many people think.

And clubBR, I don't necessaily think you're right about Queens Blvd. Aside from the fact that a lot of Queens is accessed more easily on Queens Blvd than on highways, there are many times that--even with the lights--Queens Blvd moves faster than some of the highways (in particular, I'm thinking of the traffic on the Westbound LIE to get to the tunnel).

All of that said, my guess is that both of you know far better than I do. I never claimed to be an expert, it's just what I see that makes me think this way, whereas most people here seem to be far more knowlegable about everything than I could ever hope to be.

[Ninjahedge]

UG, the thing about a congestion charge is that if the municipality does not see any decrease in volume, they can keep upping it until they do.

It is all about balance, almost supply/demand kind of thing. If people want to drive in that much, then maybe the city can earn some money from it!

[MikeW]

Has anyone considered that a congestion charge if successful, would not so much reduce congestion by forcing people into mass transit, buy by giving them more incentive to not deal with the city at all. In a way, congestion is good, since it means people either want, or feel the need, to be here.

It's also self managing. When the congestion gets so bad that it become intractable for those caught in it, they make other arrangements. After all the people stuck in the gridlock are those causing it.

[Ninjahedge]

Has anyone considered that a congestion charge if successful, would not so much reduce congestion by forcing people into mass transit, buy by giving them more incentive to not deal with the city at all. In a way, congestion is good, since it means people either want, or feel the need, to be here.

It's also self managing. When the congestion gets so bad that it become intractable for those caught in it, they make other arrangements. After all the people stuck in the gridlock are those causing it.

No.

I haven't. Also, saying that congestion is good is not right. In fluid dynamics you find out that laminar flow (linear) is better and more efficient than turbulent.

IOW, you get more flow with less pressure if you make sure the flow is smooth.

So, this is not about eliminating all traffic into the city, but rather to make it so that people actually get from one place to another. To make it a more efficient system.

[Schadenfrau]

Has anyone considered that a congestion charge if successful, would not so much reduce congestion by forcing people into mass transit, buy by giving them more incentive to not deal with the city at all. In a way, congestion is good, since it means people either want, or feel the need, to be here.

If someone "feels the need" to be here so badly, then they should feel the need to take the damn subway like everyone else. The last thing this city needs is more losers who are afraid of mass transit, or god forbid, walking.

[ryan]

You think $8 matters to the corporations that make this city run? You think Corporation X is going to say "oh, billions for the most expensive real estate and the highest paid workers in the country, but $8 to drive into manahattan - that's too much. We're moving to Jersey" That's ridiculous. I take a $75 car ride home every day. No one's worried about the $5 toll for the midtown tunnel. No one's trying to nickle & dime me over the 59th street bridge.

There is a small sliver of people for whom $8 is a lot of money, but can own a car. A microscopically, loud sliver that should be ignored to implement a no-brainer policy. Congestion pricing won't even start to pay for all the infrastructure we all pay to keep roads free. Every road should be tolled.

[Ninjahedge]

You think $8 matters to the corporations that make this city run? You think Corporation X is going to say "oh, billions for the most expensive real estate and the highest paid workers in the country, but $8 to drive into manahattan - that's too much. We're moving to Jersey" That's ridiculous. I take a $75 car ride home every day. No one's worried about the $5 toll for the midtown tunnel. No one's trying to nickle & dime me over the 59th street bridge.

There is a small sliver of people for whom $8 is a lot of money, but can own a car. A microscopically, loud sliver that should be ignored to implement a no-brainer policy. Congestion pricing won't even start to pay for all the infrastructure we all pay to keep roads free. Every road should be tolled.

Ryan, it will "start" to pay for all the roads we have to maintain, but agreed something along the lines of $8 would probably not cover all the necessary expenses.

Thing is, I don't think we should avoid charging just because that charge will not pay for everything. Hopefully it will just lighten the mandatory burden on NYC residents and others with an optionally avoided charge.

2nd thing? If they want to avoid so much conjestion give govermnet employees free bus tickets rather than free parking. According to the charts, that should take a good chunk of them off the roads.

[MikeW]

If it doesn't matter,it's not going to work. If it does matter it is going to work, but than we have collatera losses. The whole idea is to stop people from driving in. Once you achieve that, you can't control what they're going to do instead.


You think $8 matters to the corporations that make this city run? You think Corporation X is going to say "oh, billions for the most expensive real estate and the highest paid workers in the country, but $8 to drive into manahattan - that's too much. We're moving to Jersey" That's ridiculous. I take a $75 car ride home every day. No one's worried about the $5 toll for the midtown tunnel. No one's trying to nickle & dime me over the 59th street bridge.

There is a small sliver of people for whom $8 is a lot of money, but can own a car. A microscopically, loud sliver that should be ignored to implement a no-brainer policy. Congestion pricing won't even start to pay for all the infrastructure we all pay to keep roads free. Every road should be tolled.

[grimmy]

Hello everyone......

Just to give an English perspective on this, 'our' charge (in London) started out at the equivalent of $8- with a promise it would not increase for at least ten years.

Within two years the charge had been increased by 60% and within four years the area covered by charging had been doubled.

You should realise if you do go with this, there will be no turning back and increasing the charge will be a soft target everytime a future mayor needs to raise a little cash.

[macreator]

Hello everyone......

Just to give an English perspective on this, 'our' charge (in London) started out at the equivalent of $8- with a promise it would not increase for at least ten years.

Within two years the charge had been increased by 60% and within four years the area covered by charging had been doubled.

You should realise if you do go with this, there will be no turning back and increasing the charge will be a soft target everytime a future mayor needs to raise a little cash.

Do you think it was worth it?

[grimmy]

Do you think it was worth it?

The traffic drop has been measured at about 13%. That's noticeable, but not overwhelming. It has been more successful as a fund raiser, although the start up costs are very high. A lot of the income comes from penalty fines from people who forget to pay and (especially in the early days) people from out of town who were ignorant of the scheme.

The recent extension out to residential areas to the west has been especially contraversial- although residents get a substatial discount their relatives do not, leading to issues for carers etc. Although the main shopping street in Oxford Street seems as busy as ever, some small businesses have suffered.

A thumbs down from me, although it has reduced congestion slightly. How bad are things there, and have any other alternatives been suggested?

[antinimby]

^ Sounds like it has caused more harm than good, right?

[ablarc]

^ They need to raise the fee: even less congestion, even more revenue.

[BPC]

Agreed. This class war talk is BS. Who are working class here -- the 95% who take the subway and buses, or the 5% who take their cars into the City?

[nick-taylor]

The traffic drop has been measured at about 13%. That's noticeable, but not overwhelming. It has been more successful as a fund raiser, although the start up costs are very high. A lot of the income comes from penalty fines from people who forget to pay and (especially in the early days) people from out of town who were ignorant of the scheme.

The recent extension out to residential areas to the west has been especially contraversial- although residents get a substatial discount their relatives do not, leading to issues for carers etc. Although the main shopping street in Oxford Street seems as busy as ever, some small businesses have suffered.

A thumbs down from me, although it has reduced congestion slightly. How bad are things there, and have any other alternatives been suggested?Actually the drop has been higher, its just that more road space has been converted into pedestrianised areas (the pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square for instance) and bus lanes.

It was also only controversial to those who had au pair, and if you can afford one of those, you can probably afford the CC.

Generally, there is an initial dip in sales and hiring of work staff, but in the long-term as seen in the original CC zone, retail growth has accelerated as people find it easier to move around the shopping districts and the environment more pleasant. The number of VAT registrations (a measure of the number of businesses operating) has increased, and despite the suicide bombings, retail and office growth is accelerating. Ironically Central London is running out of office space as more people find it more preferable to work in Central London than previously.

- Emissions are down, air-quality is improving, and historic buildings are being cleaned of their emission soaked surfaces
- The number of accidents has fallen, fewer people are loosing their lives to vehicle accidents, the fewer cars mean more people have taken up cycling (up some 300%)
- The Square Mile continues to boom and has since overtaken New York to become the premier financial capital
- Retail growth continues to accelerate and small businesses are continuing to operate
- The population of Central London continues to rise
- Property values have not been dented
- New areas have been opened up to pedestrians-only, Trafalgar Square is now a true central meeting spot for London
- Delivery times for couriers and delivery vans is now better organised ensuring that goods arrive quicker and more smoothly
- Bus journey times have drastically improved, halving journey times in some areas
- The number of journeys on public transport continues to boom and the investment into new infrastructure and the refurbishment of what we already have is on an unprecedented scale.

The Congestion Charge is a success, but that doesn't mean it can simply be adopted everywhere. There has to be proper public transport integration and sensible alternatives in place.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'd consider a 13% reduction a success, both in traffic volume, and a reversal in culture.

http://www.nycp.org/publications/Growth%20or%20Gridlock.pdf

[ZippyTheChimp]

Meet the cloggers

Most drivers to be affected by Bloomberg's plan are from upper East Side, Queens

BY RICH SCHAPIRO, ETHAN ROUEN and TRACY CONNOR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Posted Sunday, April 29th 2007, 4:00 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/04/29/graf_congestion.jpg


If Mayor Bloomberg wants to discourage New Yorkers from driving to work, he could start with his own neighbors.

The upper East Side has thousands of residents who drive to jobs in Manhattan each day, according to an analysis by the Daily News.

The only area with more workers taking their cars to Manhattan is a remote swath of Queens that includes Whitestone and College Point, census data show.

To push drivers off the road and onto public transportation - and improve air quality - Bloomberg has proposed charging motorists to enter the busiest sections of Manhattan.

The congestion pricing plan calls for charging cars $8 and trucks $21 to enter Manhattan below 86th St. between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays.

If implemented, the contentious plan would impact about 7,100 of Bloomberg's neighbors in Community Board 8, which runs from E. 59th to E. 96th Sts. and includes Roosevelt Island.

The upper East Side commuters, including Arik Lifshitz, 26, drive to their jobs in Manhattan to avoid commuting by subway or bus. Lifshitz drives downtown from E. 89th St. and First Ave. each workday rather than brave the Lexington Ave. subway line.

"There's a lack of public transportation," said Lifshitz, who works in real estate in the East Village. "And for my work, I often need a car."

Yet Lifshitz isn't opposed to congestion pricing if it will ease traffic.

Al Cafaro, 58, who lives on E. 88th St. and Third Ave. and drives to his entertainment company, Metropolitan Talent, near Union Square, said the tolls could lead him to leave his car at home. "I think the congestion is out of hand and something needs to be done," he said. "Congestion pricing will cause people to ask themselves things like: Do we absolutely need our car?"

For residents of other neighborhoods that send large numbers of motorists into Manhattan, the answer to that question is a resounding, "Yes."

In Queens Community Board 7, for instance, 8,700 workers - the most in the city - drive to Manhattan.

And unlike the upper East Side, where several residents described their cars as more of a convenience than a necessity, many workers in the outer boroughs feel they have no choice but to drive.

Joe Lee, a city engineer who lives in Whitestone and works downtown, said if he ditched his car he would have to take a bus and two subways each way.

"To go by public transportation it would take an average of an hour and a half to two hours," he said. "If I take the car, it's a much saner commute."

Lee said congestion pricing would "stink" and might force him to double his travel time. "It will definitely discourage me [from driving]," he said.

Five other Queens community boards are in the top 10 areas with the most Manhattan-bound motorists, according to 2000 census data. Rounding out the list are the northern third and southern third of Staten Island and a community board in Brooklyn that includes Canarsie, Mill Basin and Flatlands.

The upper East Side outpaced them because it is so densely populated and because most of the residents there work in Manhattan, experts said.

Transportation consultant Bruce Schaller noted that many parts of the upper East Side also have limited subway service.

"If you work downtown and live on York Ave. it's really quick to get on the FDR," Schaller said. "And it's a haul to get over to the Lex [the 4, 5, and 6 subway] and get downtown on the most crowded train line in the United States."

The area with the smallest number of commuters driving to Manhattan was Bronx Community Board 2, which is comprised of Hunts Point and Morrisania. Only 300 workers said they take their car to work in Manhattan.

Still, Yvonne Perez, 17, who takes the No. 6 from Hunts Point to school in Manhattan, was worried that congestion pricing will make her trip less pleasant by forcing motorists to buy MetroCards. "The subway is already too crowded," she complained. "If [Bloomberg] wants to improve the environment, he should take other measures."

tconnor@nydailynews.com

With Pete Donohue, Nicole Bode and Melissa Grace

[Ninjahedge]

Mr. Lee should have thought about this before he moved to such a remote area. It is not like people in other communities do not face the same problem with mass transit.

I think many would look at this as an opportunity to pay for a quicker commute. If you saved 20 minutes on your drive in, would you want to pay $8? Do you earn more than $8 in 20 minutes? (or however much time it would save you each day).

I do think that things should be looked into being implimented to not only enable this program, but make it easier for people to take mass transit into the city. They need to make sure the busses run smoother, and have more express lines that do not stop every 2 blocks. They need more park and rides at stations that can handle the extra people-load. Then need a better control system on teh subway lines that would enable more efficient use of all that track!

But applying financial pressure to the traffic hump during rush hour will get the load to spread, and some of it to ease. And many would rather spend $8 more a day if that means they can sleep an extra 20 minutes and get home 20 minutes earlier.

[Eugenious]

Mr. Lee should have thought about this before he moved to such a remote area. It is not like people in other communities do not face the same problem with mass transit.

I think many would look at this as an opportunity to pay for a quicker commute. If you saved 20 minutes on your drive in, would you want to pay $8? Do you earn more than $8 in 20 minutes? (or however much time it would save you each day).

I do think that things should be looked into being implimented to not only enable this program, but make it easier for people to take mass transit into the city. They need to make sure the busses run smoother, and have more express lines that do not stop every 2 blocks. They need more park and rides at stations that can handle the extra people-load. Then need a better control system on teh subway lines that would enable more efficient use of all that track!

But applying financial pressure to the traffic hump during rush hour will get the load to spread, and some of it to ease. And many would rather spend $8 more a day if that means they can sleep an extra 20 minutes and get home 20 minutes earlier.



How do these people pay for parking? average of 30$ to park in Manhattan? Whats $8 compared to that?

The main problem I see with this is not the congestion pricing itself, but what happens to that money.

I hope to god that MTA does not get it, for them 500$mil is like pennies that they will waste in a day. MTA has one of the largest budgets for transportation networks in the world. They cannot effectively manage projects and large budgets. All the newly re-built stations and new construction is below acceptable level. The almost non-existent maintenance of the stations is utterly un-acceptable if the system is going to be relied on by more people.

The deaths of the 2 track workers basically point to the MTA as a irresponsible broken organization that has very lax safety standards along with horrible training and discipline.

So, point is if we start raising money by congestion pricing how do we make sure it does not disappear in the black hole known as the MTA?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
Revenue collected by city agencies goes into the general fund, and is allocated in the budget process.

[ryan]

Agreed. This class war talk is BS. Who are working class here -- the 95% who take the subway and buses, or the 5% who take their cars into the City?

yup. middle class tools.

[pianoman11686]

Mr. Lee should have thought about this before he moved to such a remote area. It is not like people in other communities do not face the same problem with mass transit.

Exactly. Back when my family lived in Queens (Bayside), my mom always had her own car that she could have used to drive into Manhattan everyday (the L.I.E. was about a mile from our home), but instead relied on the LIRR or, for a period of time, an express bus from Jamaica or Hillcrest. I don't believe anyone living in Queens is "forced" to commute by car because of a lack of other options.

[grimmy]

- Emissions are down, air-quality is improving, and historic buildings are being cleaned of their emission soaked surfaces


Emissions are down across the country as pre 1993 (non-catalyst) cars disappear from our streets.



- The number of accidents has fallen, fewer people are loosing their lives to vehicle accidents, the fewer cars mean more people have taken up cycling (up some 300&#37;)

Are these TFL figures, we need to take them with a pinch of salt if so.



- The Square Mile continues to boom and has since overtaken New York to become the premier financial capital


Proberbly nothing to do with Congestion Charging- Canary Wharf ( major financial center well outside the zone) is also booming



- Property values have not been dented


Ah come on, you are getting desparate there (note to readers- the UK is in the middle of a house price boom that has been going on for the better part of a decade)

Can you show me *anywhere* in Britain where property values *have* been dented????


This isn't as clear cut a success as Nick tries to claim.

[Deimos]

I have to say that I applaud the congestion charge. There is nothing more annoying that sitting in a cab when running late (and not having a direct subway route to use, otherwise that would be my first choice), and sitting in gridlock with cars having Jersey plates in front of you.

On a side-note, they definitely need to wait until something can be done with the Lexington IRT before implementing the charge, otherwise there will be passenger fatalities from overcrowding.

[nick-taylor]

Emissions are down across the country as pre 1993 (non-catalyst) cars disappear from our streets.

Are these TFL figures, we need to take them with a pinch of salt if so.

Proberbly nothing to do with Congestion Charging- Canary Wharf ( major financial center well outside the zone) is also booming

Ah come on, you are getting desparate there (note to readers- the UK is in the middle of a house price boom that has been going on for the better part of a decade)

Can you show me *anywhere* in Britain where property values *have* been dented????

This isn't as clear cut a success as Nick tries to claim.A big difference, the amount of emissions fell greater because the Congestion Charge meant:
- Fewer vehicles on the road
- More 'green' vehicles being used due to their
- Shorter journey times and reduced dwell times caused by traffic congestion

TfL unfortunately lack the resources to go out and collect the primary data, hence its reliance on independent parties to carry out the research. It isn't even like cycling isn't booming - you only have to look around you to see that there are more cyclists, that and train companies are having to make more space for bikes. The demand and growth is so great that a 900km cycle-only network is to be completed by 2010.

Canary Wharf might have lots of skyscrapers, but it is still the 3rd CBD of London by all measures (floorspace, volume of office workers, etc...), well behind London West End and London City. The later two are well inside the CC zone, financial and business services are for the most part still concentrated in London (some 300,000+ in the City alone compared to 80,000 at Canary Wharf). The Square Mile is the epicentre for finance in not only London, but global circles, and any detrimental effect caused by the CC would have affected London's financial situation. This is clearly the opposite, because London has become a more attractive place to locate, especially for the super rich, who then bring their billions to invest...

I think you misunderstand exactly what I'm getting at, I'm not talking about general rises that fit national trends, we're seeing growth on an unprecedented scale, £84mn ($168mn) for an apartment, and now with the same developers set to build several £50mn+ apartment blocks on the Chelsea Barracks site (just brought for a whopping £0.9bn). Granted the CC isn't the lone reason for why house prices are excelling everywhere else in the UK, but it is one factor that makes London more attractive.

The fact is, you don't even need to look at the facts and figures, go to London and see for yourself. What would I have to gain supporting something that would be damaging London? Answer: It isn't.

[ZippyTheChimp]

How is the revenue used in London?

It's a key for acceptance in New York.

[Eugenious]

I have to say that I applaud the congestion charge. There is nothing more annoying that sitting in a cab when running late (and not having a direct subway route to use, otherwise that would be my first choice), and sitting in gridlock with cars having Jersey plates in front of you.

On a side-note, they definitely need to wait until something can be done with the Lexington IRT before implementing the charge, otherwise there will be passenger fatalities from overcrowding.

I think even without the congestion pricing you're going to see insanity on the Lexington line well into 2010's.

Hell, the whole system is under strain the F train I take in the morning is full by the time it reaches Bergen St, then as I transfer to the A it's just as crowded.

[nick-taylor]

How is the revenue used in London?

It's a key for acceptance in New York.Any 'profit' goes into transport projects. The main benefactor is the bus network. London's bus system moves 6mn each day - double that of the London Underground, or the equivalent of 3x that of MTA Buses, this network is naturally the most reliant upon congestion in Central London.

Money from the CC is pushing forward the next generation of 'Countdown'. Currently the system uses radio signals that are sent when a bus passes beacons on the route which then gives the ETA for the bus. That is okay, but the next generation of Countdown is a blend of GPS and WiLAN to create a bus network that can be viewed metre by metre. Essentially you can track where the bus you use is before you even leave your house. In connection with this project, the entire 8,000 London Bus fleet will be fitted out with audio and visual announcements, its a big project that should make the network easier to use and better managed.

Another big project is the introduction of hybrid buses, only last month, the world's first hybrid double decker went into revenue service. Those are the two big CC-bus related projects that I can think of.

Another factor is that public transport journeys are rising, so the revenue is increasing there as well which is being used to overhaul the entire system.

[BPC]

London is embarassingly ahead of NYC on public transportation, which in turn is embarassingly ahead of the rest of the country. We need some national leadership on this.

[MikeW]

Most of the rest of the country has no use for public transportation.

[Eugenious]

Most of the rest of the country has no use for public transportation.

This is not true, most medium-large metropolitan centers have extensive transportation networks. Albeit not of the scale of New York.

[ryan]

Most of the rest of the country has no use for public transportation.

You're aware that there's other cities out there, right? Do you work for GM or something?

[MikeW]

Like LA, that built a subway no one uses, or LV, whose citizens just shot down the idea of putting in a light rail line.

Basically, the places where mass transit works alreay have it, and grew up around it (like NY, Chicago, SF, etc.). But most of the newer cities grew up around cars, and have a very diffuse, sprawling topography. Backfitting a transit system into them doesn't seen to work to well, nor do the people in them seem overly predisposed to giving up their cars.


You're aware that there's other cities out there, right? Do you work for GM or something?

[Schadenfrau]

Well, that settles it for me. Shut down the subways and it's cars for everyone in New York City.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Basically, the places where mass transit works alreay have it, and grew up around it (like NY, Chicago, SF, etc.). But most of the newer cities grew up around cars, and have a very diffuse, sprawling topographyMass transit can work anywhere, even in Houston (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4101)

[grimmy]

The fact is, you don't even need to look at the facts and figures, go to London and see for yourself.


I'm English. I do. Regularly. The improvement is noticeable. It is not spectacular.

The cost, on the other hand, is rising. CC is currently $16 a day, with mayor Livingstone proposing further rises after the next election.



What would I have to gain supporting something that would be damaging London? Answer: It isn't.

You are correct to say it hasn't single handedly trashed London. It is hurting individual groups, though, for little real gain

[Rational Plan]

I support the idea of congestion charging. I think it has had positive benefits for London. I also think the current system is to expensive in running costs, we get relatively little in net revenue. I think that it could be expanded to cover most of zones 1 and 2 maybe parts of three. But after that then what. Once you get to the suburbs over 50% of suburban jobs are accessed by car. Once you get out side London that is closer to 80%.

Where I live, I am only a ten minute walk from a Station, which is great if I had a job in Central London or various town centres dotted along this route, but I don't. Most mornings it only takes me 20 minutes to drive the 9 miles to my office, and another ten to walk from where I can park for free and walk into the town centre. My local bus service is reasonably frequent, if expensive but it only conentrates on my local town and a few neighbouring centres. I once tried to work how I could to get to work by bus and discovered it required two buses and an hour and half in travel time.

Other than large metropolitan centres and I find it difficult to see how road pricing can be expended further in the UK without serious political backlash.

In the US with your much lower rates of public transport use I can just about seeing it happen in Manhattan but not elsewhere.

[MikeW]

You miss the point. New York largely grew up around it's transit system. That's why transit actually works here.

Most of the cities that had most of their development from say 1930 onward, developed around highway networks and cars. They're not nearly as hub and spoke as NY metro. It would be nearly impossible to get transit stations within walking distance of even a majority of normal destinations. They'd largely have to be torn down and reconfigured. This just isn't going to happen.


Well, that settles it for me. Shut down the subways and it's cars for everyone in New York City.

[grimmy]

I also think the current system is to expensive in running costs, we get relatively little in net revenue..


Thats something we can agree on. If you are looking to raise revenue, this isn't a particularly efficient way of doing it, and start up costs are high.

Trouble is, I don't think it is a particularly efficient way of reducing traffic either, and those who have a genuine reason to drive (such as shift workers) aren't those who can most afford it.

[ablarc]

I think even without the congestion pricing you're going to see insanity on the Lexington line well into 2010's.

Hell, the whole system is under strain the F train I take in the morning is full by the time it reaches Bergen St, then as I transfer to the A it's just as crowded.
With better signalling and thus shorter headway, could capacity be increased?

[ablarc]

Like LA, that built a subway no one uses, or LV, whose citizens just shot down the idea of putting in a light rail line.
Neither of those is a real city. In fact you could define a city by the percentage of people who use public transport.

[ablarc]

In the US with your much lower rates of public transport use I can just about seeing it happen in Manhattan but not elsewhere.
Add Boston and San Francisco to your list.

[Ninjahedge]

Add Boston and San Francisco to your list.
Don't forget DC!!!

Any non-sprawl city with an actual city center can use something like congestion charging.

Why the suburbs are even being brought into discussion on this is rather baffling. Nobody has suggested the suburbs, or cities with sprawl should even be considered.


Also, news channel 12 here seems to have a definite anti-charge lean to its reporting. They make it seem like it is aimed at punishing NJ drivers, when Bloomberg is saying that this charge will have their bridge and tunnel fares included in the total price.

The way they made it seem like NYC is trying to get more $$ out of NJ when they would really be hitting their own boroughs is another example of selfish egotistic reporting.


I hate TV news... :(

[BPC]

Mass transit can work anywhere, even in Houston (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4101)

I work for a Philly company and was suprised to learn that most of the people at our HQ use public transportation as well.

[MikeW]

It's more like it can be tried anywhere. We'll see if it actually works.


Mass transit can work anywhere, even in Houston (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4101)

[kliq6]

The idea of charging people a fee, especially those in the boro's to come into Manhattan is a joke and is a great example of how Bloomberg is out of touch. I assume he will use his old tired line " everyone wants to be here, so they will pay it"

[MikeW]

Wow, isn't that a self serving comment. But hey, if you want to call LA a six million person suburb, I won't argue too much. But they ain't giving up their cars till you pry their cold dead hands off the steering wheel.


Neither of those is a real city. In fact you could define a city by the percentage of people who use public transport.

[ablarc]

The Congestion Charge is a success, but that doesn't mean it can simply be adopted everywhere. There has to be proper public transport integration and sensible alternatives in place.
nick, some years ago, before there was congestion charging, I drove up to London for the day from France. I drove around a bit in London, eventually made use of a car-park, and returned in the evening to France.

If I did that today I would be subject to a congestion charge. If I chose to not pay, what mechanism would the authorities use to get me to pay up?

[Edward]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/05/07/070507taco_talk_kolbert

The question, Bloomberg observed, is “not whether we want to pay but how do we want to pay?”

[BPC]

The idea of charging people a fee, especially those in the boro's to come into Manhattan is a joke and is a great example of how Bloomberg is out of touch. I assume he will use his old tired line " everyone wants to be here, so they will pay it"

Yes, which of course explains why no one from New Jersey drives into the City anymore. The $6 Hudson River toll has kept them all away, and the Manhattan economy is collapsing as a result. If the same principle were extended to the East River, in a few years Manhattan would be reduced to a scene straight out of the 70s Kurt Russell masterpiece, "Escape from New York".

[BPC]

nick, some years ago, before there was congestion charging, I drove up to London for the day from France. I drove around a bit in London, eventually made use of a car-park, and returned in the evening to France.

If I did that today I would be subject to a congestion charge. If I chose to not pay, what mechanism would the authorities use to get me to pay up?

If you rent a car in NJ and drive it around the City and run up parking tickets or blow through the EZ Pass lane without a medallion, what happens then? I would bet the mechanisms are pretty much the same.

[MikeW]

If this passes someone could make a good buck selling liquid crystal license plate covers. When switched off they'd be clear, but throw the switch, and there'd be nothing for the camera's to read.

[Rational Plan]

Don't forget DC!!!

Any non-sprawl city with an actual city center can use something like congestion charging.

Why the suburbs are even being brought into discussion on this is rather baffling. Nobody has suggested the suburbs, or cities with sprawl should even be considered.



While it won't happen in the US, the trend in the UK is to develop a national road pricing scheme. It might take a decade or two to introduce but the weight of government reports and ministerial announcements give you the clear message that this will happen. They know they will have a political fight on their hands, but plenty of discussion is revolving on how to lead public opinion. One of the main problems will be to convince the public that money raised from road pricing will be matched by cuts in other road taxes.

[kliq6]

While it won't happen in the US, the trend in the UK is to develop a national road pricing scheme. It might take a decade or two to introduce but the weight of government reports and ministerial announcements give you the clear message that this will happen. They know they will have a political fight on their hands, but plenty of discussion is revolving on how to lead public opinion. One of the main problems will be to convince the public that money raised from road pricing will be matched by cuts in other road taxes.

UK already taxes it citizens income at 50 %, there is not much left to pluck of that bird!

[MikeW]

Rational,

Does all this have public support, or are the politicians just doing whatever they hell they want?


While it won't happen in the US, the trend in the UK is to develop a national road pricing scheme. It might take a decade or two to introduce but the weight of government reports and ministerial announcements give you the clear message that this will happen. They know they will have a political fight on their hands, but plenty of discussion is revolving on how to lead public opinion. One of the main problems will be to convince the public that money raised from road pricing will be matched by cuts in other road taxes.

[Rational Plan]

UK already taxes it citizens income at 50 %, there is not much left to pluck of that bird!


No, just over 41% of GDP is taken in taxes in the UK

[Rational Plan]

Rational,

Does all this have public support, or are the politicians just doing whatever they hell they want?

No, it wont be an easy sell. The first big scare this government experienced was the national fuel protests in 2000. The government had a policy of increasing fuel tax greater than the rate of inflation. While oil prices had been relatively low this had not been noticed too much and it had proved a sucess. Road traffic growth fell and public transport use surged. But the spike in oil prices that year began to cause widespread dismay and the year on year tax increases on fuel began to stoke resentment. Then a group of truck drivers started to bockade fuel depots in protest. The idea spread like wildfire and soon oil company tankers were refusing to cross picket lines.

The protest was publicly popular and the government found it difficult to get the press to turn against them. After a few days panic buying at fuel stations took off, as petrol stations began to run dry. The police took control of some stations to reserve fuel supplies for medical staff and retailers warned that food stores would run out of food within two days if they could not run their trucks. By that time the goverment was in full panic and their friends in the unions were denouncing the truckers as facisits for trying to bring down a Labour government. By this time the motorways were empty as people conserved fuel. I was car sharing by this point and we were all thinking Oh shit, the better back down. By this time the press had begun to turn on the protesters and as they wern't organised they backed down.

The government learned their lesson and scrapped the fuel duty escalator, and made other tax concession to truck drivers.

So no goverment will rush into this.

Economists have long known that the best way to allocate a scarce resource is through the price mechanism. The classical example is the tradegy of the commons. But on the other hand the best political quote on the matter is 'there is nothing as democratic as a traffic jam'.

It is clear that official opinion thinks that a national road pricing is desirable. There was a huge goverment report recently on how best to allocate resources to increase transport capacity. The main thrust was that without road pricing a tranport system will reach gridlock. By using a price mechanism it will be easy to identify what areas justify extra road capacity or new public transport investment. The same mechanism would raise the extra funds for the investment.

It was only the recent sucess of the Road pricing in central London that made people think that a national scheme would be possible.

It won't be palin sailing, a plan to introduce a scheme in Edinburgh was defeated at the ballot box.

The main areas of concern are:

Can the public trust that the funds raised would see a corresponding drop in other taxes.

People are not keen on a scheme that will track every cars movement.

Goverment polling has shown that if people could be reassured on these points then public opposition to road pricing falls dramatically.

It would be foolish to intoduce this without widespread public support. Cynic think that they will wait until no lone can travel anywhere anymore before it will be introduced.


The problem of rebalancing a tax systemm is that winner thinks are midly appreciative while the losers scream blue bloody murder.

[pianoman11686]

If I did that today I would be subject to a congestion charge. If I chose to not pay, what mechanism would the authorities use to get me to pay up?

Interpol? :D

[Rational Plan]

Interpol? :D


The same mechanism as if you ran a speed camera in a rented car. The rental company would deduct the fine from your credit card.

[pianoman11686]

May 18, 2007, 2:31 pm

Making a Case for Congestion Pricing (http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/making-a-case-for-congestion-pricing/)

By Sewell Chan

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg faces huge hurdles in getting the State Legislature to go along with his congestion pricing proposal, but there were indications at a forum this morning that local officials are sympathetic to his position.

The forum, organized by the Partnership for New York City and the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, featured a detailed speech by Nicky Gavron, the deputy mayor of London, about how congestion pricing works in London.

Councilmen Eric N. Gioia and John C. Liu, two prominent Queens Democrats, said at the event that they were open to Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal, although they wanted more details. (A third Queens councilman, David I. Weprin, is adamantly opposed to congestion pricing.)

Mr. Liu, the chairman of the City Council’s Transportation Committee, said, “I generally support the idea of congestion pricing and that is – it is because of the economic as well as the environmental costs of not doing so.” He said he has been persuaded by the partnership’s study showing that traffic congestion costs the city $13 billion a year in economic activity.

The councilman said that some mom-and-pop shops and small businesses might actually support congestion pricing – if the benefits were adequately explained to them. “Time is money for these small businesses,” he said. “They could actually make more money if the streets were less congested; but they are so skeptical at this point that they’re not open-minded to hearing a lot of things. And we have to admit hey have largely been left out of the process and the entire conversation.”

Councilman Gioia said that “knee-jerk opposition” to congestion pricing is counterproductive, but added, “This discussion has got to be about cleaning our air, strengthening our economy and improving our quality of life. Congestion pricing itself is not the goal; congestion pricing is a tool to get us to those other things.”

Details of the London System

The president of the partnership, Kathryn S. Wylde, introduced Deputy Mayor Gavron, saying, “We’re just a little competitive with London on many fronts, and in this one we’re paying catch-up ball.”

Ms. Gavron, who had traveled to New York for the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit, where President Bill Clinton spoke, painted a dire picture of the threat posed to large cities by climate change:

We both know that our infrastructure and the accumulated wealth of centuries are at risk with a sea level rise of just a few meters. We are experiencing currently the effects of greenhouse gases from the 50s, when we consumed as much oil in a year as we now consume in 6 weeks. And we have to feel the effects of four and a half decades. There’s a time lag and currently we’re chucking, pushing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if there were literally no tomorrow. So we have about, people say, 10 years maximum, maximum 10 years, to actually prevent runaway climate change. That’s on top of everything we have yet to experience.

Ms. Gavron said that London’s congestion pricing scheme, which began in 2003, was an outgrowth of the new London government that was formed in 2000. (Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had abolished the citywide government in 1986.) The new mayor, Ken Livingstone, was determined to revive a mass-transit system that had suffered from years of neglect.

When he took office, Ms. Gavron said, buses were the mode of transport of last resort and 40 percent of all traffic congestion in the country was in London. Congestion cost the city about £2 billion ($4 billion) a year. Air quality was terrible, and respiratory diseases among children were abnormally high.

One-quarter of all jobs in London are in the congestion zone that surrounds the city’s central business districts. In comparison, Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed zone – Manhattan south of 86th Street – has about “four times the residential population and an even greater concentration of jobs,” Ms. Gavron said.

After the new Labor government took control of London in 2000, “the first thing we did was to invest in the bus, because it’s the most cost effective way of getting people moving” and it takes much longer to make rail improvements. Secondly, far more bus lanes were put in, along with a “draconian regime of enforcement.” By the time congestion pricing began, 11,000 extra bus seats had been added, and the addition of bus lanes made the buses travel faster.

In London, congestion pricing is in effect in the central business zone from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, with no charge on weekends or public holidays. The flat rate is £8 ($16) a day. Fixed cameras recognize license plates and record the date, time and location when a vehicle enters the zone; mobile cameras on vans also monitor movement within the zone.

Residents who lived just outside the zone were “extremely concerned about their streets becoming parking lots or rat runs” but their concerns were allayed, Ms. Gavron said, when the government closed some streets and issued resident-parking permits.

Many vehicles – about 22 percent — are exempt from the charge: taxicabs, buses, motorcycles, mopeds, bicycles, emergency vehicles, vehicles driven by the disabled, certain alternative-fuel-vehicle cars and hybrid cars; auto recovery and repair vehicles and medical and military vehicles. Commercial fleets of more than 10 vehicles pay a reduced rate. Residents within the zone get a 90 percent discount.

Ms. Gavron said that the program had reduced congestion by 26 percent. The program cost £190 million to implement, including £100 million for traffic management. The ongoing costs are £95 million a year; the program produces a gross income of £212 million and a net surplus of roughly £122 million. The proceeds have – as Mayor Bloomberg proposes – been devoted to transportation improvements: better bus networks, safer routes to school and bicycle lanes.

Yet Ms. Gavron said that congestion pricing would be a hard sell. In London, before the plan was introduced, critics predicted “there would be meltdown, meltdown. London just wouldn’t survive.”

Instead, she said, the impact has been neutral, with “no overall impact on level of employment, number of businesses, turnover, commercial rents, or profitability.”

The program has achieved substantial reductions in nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and particulate matter. Traffic accidents are down and “people feel really good about their streets,” she said, adding that two-thirds of London residents say they support the plan.

“The main losers are the small numbers of people who have been forced out of their cars for the daily commute to central London,” she said, but added that about 90 percent of commuters and shoppers used public transportation before the charge. “It is still the same.”

Ed Ott, the executive director of the New York City Central Labor Council of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., gave a fairly ringing endorsement of congestion pricing, but he said that many labor leaders are skeptical and a couple are openly hostile to the idea. For the mayor’s broader PlaNYC – a 30-year vision to make the city environmentally sustainable – to gain traction, Mr. Ott said, it must be presented as having broad social benefits.

Ms. Gavron, responding to the concern about the impact on working people, said, “We thought about this long and hard. You know, we’re socialists.”

London allows people younger than 18 and those older than 60 to ride free. The city may expand that to include people who receive public benefits. “It’s about redistribution,” she said. (And you thought New York was a liberal city.)

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[antinimby]

Fewer cars, but more parking?
Council eyes possible byproduct of traffic plan


by patrick arden / metro new york
MAY 23, 2007 (http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Fewer_cars_but_more_parking/8695.html)

CITY HALL. Under the mayor’s congestion pricing proposal, drivers will have to pay a toll to go south of 86th Street in Manhattan. At a City Council hearing yesterday, Councilwoman Jessica Lappin drew a bleak picture.

“There will be a crush of cars circling around 86th Street looking for parking spots that don’t exist,” said Lappin, who feared the downtown-bound bridge-and-tunnel crowd would use her Upper East Side district as a parking lot before catching a train. “I envision idling, and more congestion, and more pollution in the air, because there aren’t places for these cars to go.” Parking in a garage would be out of the question, she said: “The garages up there are full.”

Janette Sadik-Khan, two weeks into her job as the city’s transportation commissioner, had a simple solution: a residential parking permit. Such permits would allow only residents to park on the street. Violators would be fined and perhaps towed.

Lappin wasn’t buying it: “A residential parking permit is a hunting license.” She believed plenty of outsiders would still be looking for a place to land. “Is the city considering municipal garages?” she asked.

New parking garages would be an ironic byproduct of congestion pricing, which is meant to reduce commuters’ reliance on cars. The request for city garages was seconded yesterday by Queens Councilwoman Helen Sears, who noted that her Jackson Heights neighborhood only has one and it’s “the most densely populated district in the entire city.”

“Any thought of building municipal garages?” she asked, before complaining about cutbacks in placards that allow city officials to park with impunity.

Both Sadik-Khan and the mayor’s office would not discount the idea of building more garages yesterday, especially if they’re close to mass transit facilities. “Nothing’s off the table,” said Sadik-Khan.

Border trouble

Peggy Shepard of the nonprofit West Harlem Environmental Action supports the mayor’s plan but has concerns: “Traffic might seek to avoid the congestion pricing fee by parking in neighbor-hoods outside the zone. If that happened, the decreased speed and the related idling could result in higher pollution levels in some neighborhoods that already have high rates of asthma.”

&#169; 2007 Metro

[Deimos]

“There will be a crush of cars circling around 86th Street looking for parking spots that don’t exist,” said Lappin, who feared the downtown-bound bridge-and-tunnel crowd would use her Upper East Side district as a parking lot before catching a train. “I envision idling, and more congestion, and more pollution in the air, because there aren’t places for these cars to go.” Parking in a garage would be out of the question, she said: “The garages up there are full.”

And after a week or two of driving themselves crazy the people will realize that they should take mass transit when there is no parking.

[antinimby]

I was thinking the same thing. I can't think of anything more insane than building more municipal parking garages.

Looks like the idea is to turn these peripheral upper Manhattan neighborhoods into some sort of commuter parking depots like the ones out in the suburbs.

What a totally moronic proposition.

Just goes to show some of these City Council people shouldn't even be in the positon of making policies for this city.

Btw Deimos, check your PM.

[Ninjahedge]

Poor babies.

Cars circling for parking? If it takes yopu 45 minutes to find parking, you STOP USING YOUR CAR!!!!!.

Find a park-and-ride further out and deal with it.

[BPC]

Residential parking limits is absolutely necessary. Why should street parking be free and garages be $400-500 per month??? It only encourages people to circle endlessly, polluting the air. Make residential parking permits $100 per month, and plenty of street spots will open up, and the City will raise millions for public transit.

[Eugenious]

Nobody is going to circle looking for spots when everyone knows there are none to be had. I've never seen a person who comes to UES or UWS and expects to park on a street, everyone knows you either park in a garage or don't take the car.

Why would this change all of a sudden? if anything Congestion pricing coupled with street management will reduce the traffic by at least 10-20&#37; as shown in London.

What I'm concerned about is that in London they have a sophisticated surveillance monitoring system that records the license plates of all cars. It would be very difficult to implement this throughout Manhattan if not impossible. So they would have to make an alternate plan, but if you're not monitoring how do you go after violators? Don't tell me they are going to put cops and roadblocks on every avenue!

[lofter1]

It's already been announced that in NYC surveillence of vehicles will be done via hundreds of cameras placed about the city.