Decongesting New York

2005_11_congestion.jpg
So despite Bloomberg's attempts to distance himself from last week's hot topic, congestion pricing, the issue still reared its head at a Thursday "meeting of leaders of the city's business improvement districts."

The meeting, held in a Times Square theater, covered all sorts of possibilities for decongesting the city from bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways (which are different from sidewalks?) and the suddenly popular congestion pricing (in which it costs cold hard cash to drive in the city at certain times). Beyond just going over the possibilities for crowd and car reduction no decisions were come to at the meeting, just lots of talking. But the story still caught our eye for two reasons: 1) the Times introduced and now seems pretty intent on pushing congestion pricing onto the public, this is their third story on the topic in a week, anyone know what's up with that? 2) For no particular reason we thought the idea of all of the leaders of the city's business improvement districts being in one rooms was funny. We realize that it in no way is funny, and yet still, we laughed.

Email This Entry


Comments (6) [rss]

I'm pretty sure that "pedestrian walkways" is in reference to the crosswalks, not the sidewalks.

On topic though, the congestion in the city during those specific times in those specific areas are pretty brutal. Either mass transit isn't cutting it for some people, or commuters are just being a bit selfish, or all of the above.

No, pedestrian walkways are not synonymous with crosswalks or sidewalks. "Walkway" can refer to a host of different concepts. One definition is a dedicated path specifically designed to keep pedestrians moving since sidewalks are used for all sorts of purposes - walkway, window-browsing point, meeting space, vendor space, bicycle parking space, newstand and newspaper box location, etc. Look at what a mess Times Square and Chinatown are with tourists stopping every few feet to look at something else. Then there are long, uninterrupted footpaths like the Hudson River footpath/bikepath on the west side.

They could also be talking about skybridges like over the FDR, although I hope not.

The Times has been endorsing either East River bridge tolls and/or congestion pricing for years.


See http://bridgetolls.org/saying/#sts for the citations and some commentary.


A London-style congestion charge makes sense for the Manhattan business districts. The streets are too crowded to give away for free. Especially when there are good alternatives available.

"Gridlock" Sam Schwartz has a pretty good plan outlined here: http://simcity.ea.com/about/inside_scoop/gridlocksam.php

Congestion pricing is actually a hot topic in the EU. I just came from the European Transport Conference in Strasbourg and attended *about* 30 papers on the subject ranging from attitudes, acceptance, transit projects arising from, technologies, demand for, pricing signals, etc. There are many forms of such pricing but the one considered best (in the long run) is the nation-wide plan contemplated by the Secretary for Transport (UK) Alistair Darling. As I understand it, this proposal covers every road and every mile and every time, but with fees ranging from ~5 cents/mile in rural areas to ~$2.25/mile in central London during rush hour. That idea often includes removing the fuel tax (the debate is not closed).

The Economic math behind this extends back to the 1920’s; traffic engineers have become gradually cognizant and now it is universally agreed (amongst traffic engineers) that using pricing signals is the ONLY way to manage congestion. The car is simply too appealing, too useful, too comfortable, too convenient, and too cheap. The ONLY thing that reduces traffic is a recession (Anthony Downs, Still Stuck in Traffic, 2004); and building more roads (which still needs doing) only invites more vehicles.

Conclusion? Road pricing by any name you prefer is going to happen. It will likely happen on a regional-national-scale throughout most of Europe (~2010-2020) before is happens on a broad regional-state-national scale in the North America (2015-2025). Whatever NY does in the near term, if it does it, will be local and likely a noisy and painful affair. It will not get easy and well entrenched until wireless metering and collection using positioning technology is ready for this application. DSRC technology (e.g. EZPass) can’t cut the full-region “road-use-charge” payment x distance x time of day x vehicle class type of scheme to make this fair, although it can be used to meter main arteries.

The Times has been endorsing either East River bridge tolls and/or congestion pricing for years.


They have printed another editorial today in the City Section:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/opinion/nyregionopinions/congestion.html/partner/rssnyt


See http://bridgetolls.org/saying/#sts for past citations and some commentary.


A London-style congestion charge makes sense for the Manhattan business districts. The streets are too crowded to give away for free. Especially when there are good alternatives available.

"Gridlock" Sam Schwartz has a pretty good plan outlined here: http://simcity.ea.com/about/inside_scoop/gridlocksam.php

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

Get your daily dose of New York first thing in the morning from our weekday newsletter, now in beta.

About Gothamist

Gothamist is a website about New York. More

Editor: Jen Chung
Publisher: Jake Dobkin

Newsmap

newsmap.jpg

Contribute

Latest Tip:

not exactly NY news, but it's one more reason to hate hamas terrorists and the fascists in their mid
[more]

Latest Photo:

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Gothamist.

All Our RSS

Follow us