Slow Going for N.Y. Traffic Plan

[flashl]

Source: Washington Post


Proposed 'Congestion Pricing' Fees Hit Political Gridlock in Capitol

NEW YORK -- Traversing Manhattan's narrow width at midday can be an excruciatingly slow experience.

...

All that congestion is not just inconvenient, it is costly. According to business experts and others, traffic congestion costs New York about 50,000 jobs and $13 billion annually in lost productivity. That includes slow deliveries, gasoline wasted in idling vehicles, and the repairmen who can make only a couple of stops each day. And it doesn't even begin to count the costs to human lungs from breathing in all that pollution.

To address the problem, New York's powerful business community has formed an unusual alliance with environmentalists, civic groups and commuters' associations in favor of a plan, called congestion pricing, borrowed from another traffic-clogged city, London. It would charge $8 for cars and $21 for trucks to enter Manhattan below 60th Street during peak hours. The money would be used to upgrade the city's clogged and in places crumbling mass-transit system.

"There is nothing you can do to improve air quality as quickly and dramatically as reducing vehicular traffic through congestion pricing," Wylde said.

Washington Post

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040502101.html

---

This administration's Transportation Dept. is seeking ways to implement it's "toll booth" on every corner scheme. As states become more financially desperate, they offer flimsy reasons to the public in order to obtain Federal grants that implement 'congestion pricing' scams.

[MH1]

1. Scam?

I thought congestion pricing was working well in London. Why do you call it a scam?

What alternative do you propose, to get people out of their cars and into public transit or riding bicycles?

The planet can't survive 7+ billion people all driving their own personal hydro-carbon sucking, pollution-spewing motorized conveyances.

Well, actually the planet will survive, but most of humanity and many other living species will be in a very bad way.

[flashl]

2. Is planning for congestion an afterthought? nt

[MH1]

4. In an established city like New York, of course. nt

[DRoseDARs]

6. Well, obviously you should be blaming the Dutch then. They started the city...

...clearly they should fix this mess because of their lack of foresight.

Your comment implies you'd rather they focus solely on planning wider roads et. al. for new developments spreading ever-further out from city centers instead of trying to find solutions to existing infrastructure problems as well, as if this was an either/or proposition. Short of razing the entire city and rebuilding from scratch "planning for congestion" as you say, what do you suggest they do?

[flashl]

7. This is allegedly about BUSINESS costs, the OTHER GREEN.

"According to business experts and others, traffic congestion costs New York about 50,000 jobs and $13 billion annually in lost productivity."

[DRoseDARs]

9. So, because it isn't ideologically pure, dismiss it out-of-hand in its entirety?

Never mind the health and environmental benefits from reducing traffic on the island, if there's any possibility that a business manages to see better potential profits KILL THE IDEA DEAD!!! Is that what you're saying? :shrug:

[flashl]

11. Business profits and health or environmental benefits in America?

When?

[DRoseDARs]

3. You can take my automobile ... after you pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands...

That's the mentality you're up against, no matter WHAT the other person is driving or where. :shrug:

Personally, I think the island of Manhattan is the perfect place for a massively expanded public bus system. Its limited and narrow geography simplifies any such system.

[MH1]

5. I don't expect to see that mentality on DU though.

Well, actually I do, but I'd like to think not.

[flashl]

8. Follow the money ...

US DOT Gives NYC $354 Million for Congestion Pricing Plan

The secretary of transportation announced this morning that the federal government will provide New York City with $354 million to implement congestion pricing in New York City, if the State Legislature acts by March 2008 to put in effect Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's proposal for charging traffic fees in Manhattan.

...

The conditions are spelled out in a seven-page agreement {pdf} signed by federal, state and city officials.

NY Times

[MH1]

10. So, NY gets federal $$$ to implement a plan that makes sense

and will help us all by reducing carbon dioxide and other GHG's in the atmosphere.

I don't get what your issue is. Could you be more specific?

[flashl]

12. Where did you find the goal of 'reducing carbon dioxide' in the MOU with the Feds?

Suggesting that this administration or this initiative demonstrates 'interest' in the environment or health ignores this administration's track record.


(Bush) Letting the Market Drive Transportation

Last year, Congress decided not to dictate how the department could spend its discretionary funds. No earmarks, no strings, no arm-twisting from lawmakers to direct money to bus systems or other mass-transit projects in hundreds of communities nationwide.

Duvall and other top department officials were staring at nearly $1 billion. And they knew exactly how to spend it.

...

They and other political appointees have spent the latter part of President Bush's two terms laboring behind the scenes to shrink the federal role in road-building and public transportation. They have also sought to turn highways into commodities that can be sold or leased to private firms and used by motorists for a price. In Duvall and Gribbin's view, unleashing the private sector and introducing market forces could lead to innovation and more choices for the public, much as the breakup of AT&T transformed telecommunications.

...

"Everything they're doing is designed to drive things to privatization," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure highways and transit subcommittee.

Washington Post

[MH1]

13. 2nd paragraph of the executive summary

of this doc you linked above, to be sure there is no confusion:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/city_room/20070814_dotagreement.pdf

taking those actions WILL reduce atmospheric pollution and GHGs.

As to the article in your latest post, privatization of some roads could be a problem, but I don't see how congestion pricing necessarily results in privatization of road maintenance.

[flashl]

15. This paragraph 2?

In the event the New York State legislature enacts and the New York City Council approves the Mayor's Plan, the Urban Partner agrees to undertake the following actions:

i. institute a broad area pricing system in Manhattan south of 86th Street;
ii. construct new transit facilities, including two bus depots, a bus lay-up afcility, park-n-ride facilities, and pedestrian improvements;
iii. construct a series of bus rapid transit (“BRT”) and/or bus-based corridors;
iv. implement transit technologies including Transit Signal Priority leading to and in selected Manhattan transit corridors;
v. make improvements to regional ferry services;
vi. collect and analyze transportation data to support the West of Hudson Regional transportation analysis;
vii. construct an East River bus lane; and
viii. purchase and operate additional buses to meet the mobility needs of New York City.

In exchange for these commitments, the Department intends to allocate $354 million in Federal grant funding for actions (i) through (vi), according to the terms of a grant agreement ( or a series of grant agreements) to be negotiated by the Department of Urban Partner. The Urban Partner will be responsible for funding actions (vii) and (viii).

[BearSquirrel2]

17. As long as we get our fair share ...

We'd like to extend the South Shore rail line to southern Lake and Porter counties in Indiana. As long as New York pays for our transportation issue, I have no problem with us paying for New Yorks transportation issue.

[jumptheshadow]

21. You've got to be kidding!!!

New York pays out much more in federal taxes than it takes in! In fact, the tri-state area (NY, NJ and Connecticut) is a money machine for the government, while ranking in the very bottom of federal government aid. This study is about four years old, but is probably still true today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/nyregion/29economy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Trillo]

18. Right. As if those people have no heart.

Any user fee such as this is regressive: Hits the poorest the hardest.

I'm still waiting for personal transportation costs to be deductible, just like they are and have been for business for decades. We can't even deduct the costs of getting to our "jobs".

That's the heartless mentality of which I'm speaking. Give more to the RICH!

[annabanana]

23. (thank you). . . . . . . .n/t

[BearSquirrel2]

16. The Bike Messangers ...

The Bicycle Messengers are the Hermaic Lords of Manhatten. There is no faster way to travel through the congestion.

I agree that in order to clear the street of congestion, they must tax. I've driven downtown Chicago exactly twice and it convinced me to never go back in a car.

New York is right to set access to a resource "the streets" according to demand. Further, what is really needed are the "micro-vehicles" that the Euros use. Large vehicle use should be reserved for freight delivery.

[1monster]

14. What about "Park and Ride" options. Free parking and minimal charge for

public transportation, along with high parking charges for downtown parking?

The idea of a toll booth on every block sounds just as, if not more, congestion causing.

New York als might want to consider rerouting I-95 away from the City...

[Danmel]

19. Suburbs will NEVER let it happen

The problem is that so many people drive into the city (yes that's what we bridge and tunnel folks call Manhattan) and since many pay tolls etc, they do not want to pay to drive in Manhattan too. Suburban lawmakers will be cricified if they support this plan, no matter how logical it seems. And the mass transit infrastructure, while better in NYC than in most places, is not as good in the burbs, which encourages more driving. The New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, has already threated a lawsuit. I'm sure the inner ring of suburbs in NY- Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester -lawmakers will also oppose the plan.

I have no confidence that our government will ever address global warming and environmental issues because the representatives are too afraid of pissing off the people who drive in to even take an incremental step. It is hopeless.

[DLnyc]

25. At a local meeting recently, people involved in the plan said that

bridge and tunnel users would be exempted from the congestion charge. Basically, politically connected groups won't pay, less powerful groups will pay.

[Danmel]

27. Well a good number of "bridge and tunnel" users are outer borough residents

and aren't really "politically" connected- they are pretty normal middle class people, some not even middle class. I just think the suburban majority in the Assembly and state Senate will never take the risk of pissing off their core constituency to meet ann environmental goal in the city.

[flashl]

28. This is DOT Urban Partner info. There is no hint about environmental concerns

Bush 'Urban Partners' (PPT)

Congestion Pricing - Bringing Supply and Demand into Alignment

* Failure to properly price travel on highways is a root cause of congestion
o The price of highway travel (gas taxes, registration fees, etc.) bears little or no relationship to the cost of congestion
o Unlike other public utilities, the public expectation is that the "service" is free or does not change with changes in demand
* Allocating transportation services via pricing is more efficient than allocating by delay

Urban Partnership Agreements - Congestion Pricing

* Integrated "4T" Strategy
o TOLLING (pricing) - Key Element
+ Direct user charge based on use of facility; varies based on level of congestion
+ Toll collection via electronic means (no booths)
o Transit
o Telecommuting/Travel Demand Management
o Technology

Path to the Urban Partners

Time Line June 2007: USDOT Announces Nine PUPs

* Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, Miami
* San Diego, Denver, Dallas, Atlanta

[H8fascistcons]

20. HHHMMMMMM...

You can only "build up" for so long and then this is the result, a massive inner city transportation restructuring would need to be implimented, if only we didn't need to bail out Bear Stearns and bomb unarmed people in Iraq, we might be able to confront some of these challanges in our own country....

[AndyTiedye]

22. The Devil is In the Details

The congestion charges are to try to get people to ride the public transport that they will build eventually.
In the meanwhile, they will continue to drive, if their area is not served by public transport.
Congestion pricing works well in London because it and its suburbs already have excellent public transportation.

The only ones who will be driven out of their cars by this are those who are barely making it anyway.
The wealthy won't be deterred, any more than they are by the $25 parking.

It is also to encourage those who work in the city to move there. Good luck with that. The city is full already.
Some would move to the city, but that only means that others (with less money) have to move out.

A "tollbooth on every corner" means that you have to have a transponder on your vehicle, so they can track you everywhere you go.
Wouldn't it be easier and less intrusive to raise the parking taxes? Those cars have to park somewhere.

[Lucky Luciano]

24. Do not increase parking taxes....COngestion pricing makes the most

sense. We pay a fortune for parking already. I got a "sweet deal" for two years by paying $275 in Midtown (I live at 23rd and sixth), but that just got jacked to $400, which is still below market rates. I do not need the tax to go higher given that I only drive on the weekends. The congestion pricing is meant to deal with the congestion times - since I do not contribute to this congestion at peak hours, why should I have to pay for it.

I do believe in having the congestion pricing though - and most people who cannot afford congestion pricing in Manhattan don't have cars anyway. Very wealthy people often do not have cars.

[rocktivity]

26. It will only push the congestion (and pollution) further uptown

and make it harder for the congestion payers to get into midtown because they'll be slowed by the extra traffic coming from further uptown. Also, the plan does not include making public transportation more frequent or less expensive.

:(
rocknation