Gothamist: Congestion Costs NYC Billions

Anonymous

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 03:14:14 -0500

As a first step in reducing the cause of traffic, if they put a cap on the size of buildings going up all over town, say 30 stories instead of 50-60 stories, then you can be certain the developers at NYC Partnership would pull a fast retreat. Put the apartment towers and office towers in the outer boroughs (where the politicians would love them) and that's where the traffic will go.

will

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:35:44 -0500

so, we're talking about a $13 billion cost in a $901 billion economy. that's what, 1%? nobody would even notice a completely cost-free solution here, so why not focus on things that have a much greater cost?

jg

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:52:45 -0500

The only problem I see with congestion pricing is with regards to the people who live below 60th and own a car: are we really going to charge them an extra $300 or so a month simply because they own a car and live in the congestion area? I mean, OK, sure, if you own a car and live below 60th there's a good chance you can afford the extra $300 a month, but putting that past the people who are going to be paying it just might not fly.

Greg

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:42:18 -0500

mike - reduced automobile congestion *would* do wonders for vastly improving bicycling infrastructure, as would enforcing parking violations. It would also do wonders to improve the bus transit system as our buses would likely be much more efficient due to less cars clogging our streets.

mike

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:41:55 -0500

timbnyc - Studies already done show that congestion charging is in fact not regressive (look at the work done by the Bridge Tolls Advocacy Project at http://bridgetolls.org/). Also, London's CG scheme was preceded by massive improvements in bus and bicycling infrastructure, which has absorbed the shift in passengers. Any such scheme in NYC would necessarily have the same requirement - Bus Rapid Transit, light-rail, increased subway service, vastly improved bicycling infrastructure, etc - lots of options.

mike

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:37:07 -0500

Tom, Apparently you aren't very familiar with the actual details of congestion pricing. There are no toll booths involved, and very little in terms of intrusive physical infrastructure. Congestion charging has worked very well in London and other cities. There is absolutely no reason (other than ignorance and timidity) that it can't work here. In fact, we've had it before, if you know your NYC history. Also, not implementing congestion charging is not a question of just letting people sit in traffic - you paint the situation as if it doesn't affect you since you ride the subway. Yet you pay at least $13 billion in lost economic output due to congestion, and this is a conservative estimate. This also does not include effects of pollution, deaths and injuries due to motor vehicle crashes and stress from noise. Not to mention the moral imperatives to reduce energy usage because of global warming and the geopolitical impacts of a ravenous appetite for fossil fuels from countries that don't particularly like us. So I encourage you to do some research before you issue another flippant dismissal of the concept. Otherwise, what is *your* solution?

Steven

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:49:10 -0500

Bloomberg looks like he is very bored.

timbnyc

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:39:47 -0500

Forget congestion pricing - discussion of it is a magician's trick, designed to distract you from the real solution - HOV requirements for entering Manhattan. They were in place for years after 9/11 and worked fine. Then they were dropped. Besides, congestion pricing is regressive taxation - it would clear up the traffic so rich people could have a nice ride. The rest of us would be stuck on underfunded mass transit. And if you think that the money raised by congestion taxes would go to transit, think again. Taxes designated for transit have a tendency to get steered to the general fund just before they're enacted.

justanother

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:32:32 -0500

I used to come up with crazy reasons why the smoking ban was wrong for New York. Then I quit smoking.

flavor fabio

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:11:28 -0500

If the City can turn cars and trucks back around during 9/11. They can enforce tolls. Why would the City put up Toll plazas in Columbus Circle? What's wrong with the tolls already implemented, such as, the Midtown tunnel and bridges. I believe the obvious plan was to make them pay Inbound. Anyway, I'm sure someone else will chime in as to how some cities already implemented congestion pricing.

Tom

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:01:25 -0500

It will never get implemented because because it's stupid and doesn't accomplish anything. You're talking about (probably) displacing businesses and homes via eminent domain to put up Toll booths around the city (those will be a pretty addition to photographs in Columbus Circle... and I'm sure the people who own apartments near them will just love the extra new honking) and the way the city streets are laid out, you're only fitting about three or four of them, max, across the street (got to fit at least one booth for people who don't have EZ-Passes). Oddly, what do small toll plazas create? Traffic! So basically, to help ease traffic in Midtown, you worsen traffic in residential areas outside midtown. Oh, and for extra fun and excitement, you will astronomically increase the price of parking garages outside the congestion zone, while the garages inside the congestion zone drop their prices to counteract the so all their customers don't go away, thus rendering the whole thing useless. You also assume a good number of people commuting into the city pay their parking or their tolls without expensing them to their employer, which I don't know the percentage of. If people want to sit in traffic, let them. I'll take the subway and laugh at them like I do every day... and they can laugh at me when I'm standing around waiting 20 minutes for an R to show up on the weekend.

check

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:54:02 -0500

pugsley: no, just cars, mr. ha ha funny man

Jeremy Sapienza

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:20:42 -0500

I always joke to friends about how "when I am mayor" I will slap a $50 toll on ALL access points into Manhattan. Though I'll never be mayor and $50 is just a silly number that popped into my head, it should be very expensive to drive a car into the City, if only to discourage joyrides and Queensian sloth. If the rich want to take their cars over the bridge, fine, there aren't that many of them. But no Jersey schmucks clogging the streets daily -- as pedestrian-friendly as you'd think a city with such a low rate of car ownership would be, I have a hard time crossing many minor streets in the City. Delivery vehicles and private buses should pay a standard toll, and all other cars should pay a hefty toll to cross into (and definitely thorough) the city. Of course there are details to work out but the basic idea is a sound one. As a sort-of-related side note -- abolish the stupid cab medallion system. It artificially deflates the availability of easy, cheap, and fast cab rides around town. I know that's just how the cabbies like it but I don't appreciate waiting 10 minutes in the rain to go 10 blocks and then paying $7 for the privelege, especially when I'm only not walking because I'm already late. Time for some cartel-busting!

pugsley

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:13:16 -0500

This plan should also be extended to pedestrians and bikes. There should be tollbooths on the bridge pedestrian ramps charging 2 dollars for entry to manhattan. Then there should be chainlink fencing every six blocks or so with another turnstile charging 50 cents to enter each additional quadrant. This would clear up a lot of congestion and make things more convenient for me.

Shmurf

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:53:39 -0500

No sh*t ! This will continue until the City decides to get serious about alternatives avaiable . Bottom line !

econ

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:34:22 -0500

Anyone who understands business, runs a factory, has worked in a factory, etc. understands the logic of this. The faster goods and services can get from point A to point C and the faster people can get from point B to point C, the faster those people will have access to those goods and services. A person sitting in traffic getting to my store is a person who is not AT my store buying something. So why doesn't Bloomberg understand it? My guess is he does, but he lacks the political will to implement what might be seen as a hardship to Staten Islanders or garage owners. People sitting in traffic benefits no one except gas companies, due to empty tanks, and auto body shops, due to increased wear and tear on cars. Not even cab drivers benefit from traffic. They'd much rather have lots of short trips than a shift of only a few long (or idle) trips.

JT

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:21:57 -0500

They'd better do something about those damn bikes blocking traffic.

mike

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:55:55 -0500

Yeah, congestion charging will "never be implemented", just like the Department of Education reform or the smoking ban could never have been accomplished either, right? All of us will suffer because Bloomberg is whimping out on congestion charging.