Disabled Vietnam Vet Hot Dog Vendor Arrested Outside Met
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Tenants' Rights Flash Cards!
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Even though it's been a year since the idea of congestion pricing in the city was first floated, the idea does seem to have legs. Last week, a NY Times article noted that about a number of groups were rallying behind congestion pricing, in hopes of getting politicians on board and influencing the Mayor's plan for the city's growth. And today, the Daily News reports that a survey finds almost 45% of respondents thinking " it would be a good idea to charge drivers to enter Manhattan below 60th St. because it would get them into trains and buses." Then again, 45% were opposed to the idea, since there are already hefty tolls at the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign questioned 800 city residents and also found:
- Only 18% were familiar with the concept of congestion pricing, which also entails charging drivers more for peak-hour travel.Which is all very interesting, because the Times article mentioned that environmental group Environmental Defense will be developing a campaign to "spread the congestion pricing message." If more residents know what congestion pricing is, they may be more comfortable with it, as there are many quality of life issues attached.- Nearly 80% believe traffic jams are a problem, and 53% say congestion is a major problem.
- Strong dissatisfaction with Mayor Bloomberg's efforts in addressing traffic: 59% give him a negative rating.
- 77% agree that congestion pricing will reduce noise and air pollution in the city. Almost all of those believe it will speed emergency response.
- 65% of workers take mass transit, while 24% drive their own cars.
On the opposing side, what about residents who can't get to mass transit easily and rely on their cars? There will probably need to be differing models of who pays what to drive below 60th Street (for instance, it would be complicated, but worthwhile to consider various incentives to employers or employees who commute by mass transit for at least part of the trip). We look forward to the Partnership for New York City's "revamped study" about the city's congestion, due out next month.
And two weeks ago, Transportation Alternatives had suggestions for the Mayor (PDF) on reducing the number of trucks and cars by 15% by 2009. Points included more bicycle-only and bus-only lanes; more crossing time for pedestrians; lowering the speed limits; enforcing truck routes; and increasing parking meter costs to encourage turnover.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
How does congestion pricing for certain areas of the city compare with just adding tolls to the rest of the entrances to Manhattan? It's more expensive and harded to make work. But it may be something the city can do on its own, without state approval.
If the city really is going to toll, in effect, individual streets, perhaps this extra expense could be make worthwhile by expanding the tolled area outside Manhattan, including Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City as well. One of the big arguments used against tolling the bridges is that it would back up traffic in Downtown Brooklyn, making it more difficult for Brooklyn politicos to drive to work.
And if an areas of Manhattan is to be excluded, it is the portion above 110th Street, not the portion above 60th Street.
Having traveled to many congested cities around the world, I have to say that Congestion Pricing does work. However, it'll be a challenge to implement and police in NYC because there are so many out of town drivers that may not be aware of this. In a city (country) like Singapore where 99% of the drivers are indigenous, congestion pricing is easy to enforce and does help in easing traffic.
Is Congestion pricing needed or just better traffic enforcement?
This has been working in London for at least a couple of years. It's well worth exploring, even if people aren't familiar with it. Once it's implemented they'll be familiar with it anyway!
Perhaps a two-tier system - one price for trucks and one price for commuters - would be fair.
Amazing... Yet another story about congestion pricing that doesn't mention the alternative of riding scooters! You don't have to choose between driving an SUV and riding a bike you know...
That's one of the big stories about congestion pricing in London. Many people took up scootering to avoid paying the commuter fees, and now wouldn't commute any other way!
New York should implement this AND provide scooter parking if it's serious about reducing congestion in NYC.
I doubt New Jersey and Long Island commuters would ride Vespas over the GW Bridge or LIE. Call it a hunch.
Of course a few people will try to get around the rules by riding Scooters, but it's probably an insignificant number. The difference between London and here is that London doesn't have the extensive highway system around the city like NYC does.
scooters.
right.
because what we need is pollution like cities in italy or southeast asia coming from squadrons of noisy and unregulated motorbikes.
As soon as scooters get as clean as cars, we can talk about scooters. They may help the congestion problem, but they are dirty little mothers. Even spanking new 4 strokes are more polluting than SUVs, by a magnitude of 100. See the Willamette Week article detailing new EPA data on scooters.
http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3240/7867
As the great Jack McCoy said, "Tell ya what. They oughta ban cars in Manhatten."
REally...scooters? How about when it rains, or it snows?
What about more electric buses, or trolley lines above ground that stop at every cornor, as well as keeping the subways for going greater distances.
Any cars, should be restricted to car services coming to and from airports, going directly to hotels, and back again to the airports. Or, what the hay. Why not a differant kind of subway car, one that is easier to access with luggage, and subway tracks you get to from airports, via ramps instead of stairs, escalators or elevators. Ok, keep some large elevators for handicapped folks. I took a subway once from an airport into a city (not Manhatten) and I never will again, anywhere. Ever try going down an escalator with one large suitcase, a carryon and a purse, by yourself? Not easy. Or fun. Then trying to keep your luggage out of everyone's way on the subway...first thing in another country, and you get a lot of nasty looks. Then, going up another escalator...
Hotels should have entrances directly to subway platforms. Get off the subway, and check in.
Ok, so my version of city planning is probably not feasable for one reason or another, but wouldn't it be great?
How about using these tolls to directly fund mass transit, given the increased traffic these systems are going to encounter as a result.
Honestly, I think it's a great idea to reclaim the streets of manhattan. Just make sure that mass transit gets adequately funded first (and wait until East Side Access and the new NJT tunnel are finished)
Cool...cuz I DIDN'T have to wait for another train this morning cuz the first one was packed...
"And what will happen in the morning when the
world it gets so crowded that you can't look out
the window in the morning"
-ND
#8, you really need to learn to do some calculations and stop swallowing everything every second-rate "reporter" writes without thinking. Where in that article you point to do they even write that modern 4-stroke scooter engines are 100x worse that SUVs? Read it again. 40 year old 2-strokes are 100x worse is what they actually wrote. Also, they somehow magically get more CO2 out of scooter engines. What do you think the emissions of gasoline combustion are? Water, CO2 and unburned hydrocarbons. (And anyone who's ever taken a chemistry class would know carbon dioxide is CO2 with a subscript. The symbol for oxygen is a capital O. That sure takes out a lot of their credibility when they keep writing Co2.) You've got to have all three. It's basic chemistry. So if the SUV they tested isn't putting out much CO2 or unburned hydrocarbons, just where are is all the carbon going? Is there a magic carbon sink somewhere? I'm thinking they actually mean CO, or carbon monoxide. The CO2 output of the SUV is obviously far higher than the scooter, since it's burning 7x more gas.
Congestion pricing sounds like a great idea. Charge people by how large their vehicles are and how many seats are filled. A single seat vehicle with just one rider pays $5. A Hummer or Excursion with one driver should pay $100. Hell, if you can afford one of those and the gas they guzzle, $100 a trip into the city is nothing.
hey, heres a novel idea, let people do what they want for crying out loud. dont like congestion dont drive, it doesnt bother you than by all means go ahead. want an SUV - go for it, find them offensive - dont buy one. i'm sick of the gov't regulating everything... i thought this was the land of the free.
Billybob, that's a nice populist argument but unfortunately, you're non-partisanly wrong.
1. My tax dollars go to my government to build and maintain roads, bridges & tunnels - so why shouldn't my government regulate said facilities to get maximum efficiency out of them?
2. Basic free-market economic principles say that for a market to function correctly, you need to minimize externalities that distort prices. For example, with driving, I subsidize all the pollution your vehicle spews, all the cops who enforce the traffic laws, the emergency vehicles that respond to accidents, and many hospital bills of people injured in said accidents. Drivers get a cheaper ride on my buck.
It's not so easy as letting anarchy rule on the roads. There are other, major, factors that distort the playing field and demand government intervention - not for the sake of over-regulating, but for making market corrections so that our transportation infrastructure functions most efficiently - and fairly.
Oh, and if you want to let people do what they want - it may one day come to pass that, like in London and Stockholm, people might WANT congestion pricing here. Then where's your argument?
I'm sick of this picture!
Um, how will they get people to pay for this, toll booths? Won't that cause even more congestion??
Jack: In London, cameras read the license plate and look up who owns the car (like they do for parking tickets). You can buy a season ticket, or call a number with your credit card to pay for one-offs. The traffic doesn't have to slow down, which is great because with less congestion you can drive faster!
I agree that public transportation must be improved to support this, though. There should be more subway trains. Buses should be able to move faster with less traffic around.
I look forward to the day when some of NYC's avenues are grassed over, with little bike lanes and a quiet tram going up and down the middle.
I love the idea of discouraging traffic in the city, but mass transit is NOT an option for most outsiders (daily commuters are a different story). New York's mass transit system is downright hostile to people who are not familiar with it. In the subways, signs are confusing, maps are few and far between, and don't get me started on buses.
New York's subway system *could* be improved to make it an option for visitors, but it'll take a lot of money to replace a lot of signs and make pretty much everything much easier to understand.