June 8, 2007
Bloomberg Can't Talk Congestion Pricing Specifics Yet
Some wrap-up about Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing legislation making its way to the state senate. The controversial and innovative (for the U.S.) plan which would charge vehicles to enter Manhattan below 86th Street (between 6AM and 6PM) received support from Governor Spitzer and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters yesterday, but it looks like Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver may once again be the Mayor's bete noir. How so? Silver has a number of concerns (privacy issues because of the 1,000 cameras that would take photos of drivers' cars), worries that the pricing will go up ("What guarantees are there on the price? In London, it was 5 pounds when it started. It's 10 pounds now. And it's only been a couple of years.") and a desire for details,
Mayor Bloomberg, who is scheduled to answer congestion pricing questions today at an Assembly hearing, said, "People want specificity. The answer is until we try it, we're not going to exactly know. We are smart enough and flexible enough to try things and to constantly improve them." Secretary Peter implied that about $500 million in federal grants could come NYC's way if the congestion pricing plan were passed.
And here are some quotes we found interesting:
- From NY Post, Governor Spitzer, in spite of his reservations: "This is not really a question of whether, it's a question of when and a question of doing it properly."
- From Newsday, Assemblyman Robert Brodsky (D-Westchester) said Bloomberg's urgency sounded familiar: "We resisted this kind of pressure when they told us we had to do it [the stadium] or lose the Olympics."
- Another Brodsky quote from the Daily News: "Why is this worth a regressive tax on the middle class and a new invasion of privacy to go only six-tenths of a mile further in an hour?"
- From the NY Times: "As it happened, Ms. Peters said she had been delayed from reaching the Thursday morning meeting with the governor and the mayor because she was stuck in traffic on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive."
Gothamist on PlaNYC, the city's sustainability initiative that includes congestion pricing.
Photograph two people taking traffic matters into their own hands by jaywalking by mariab3bx on Flickr
| 
Someone should get Assemblyman Brodsky a dictionary or an economics book.
"Why is this worth a regressive tax on the middle class and a new invasion of privacy to go only six-tenths of a mile further in an hour?"
A regressive tax is one that impacts the poor more than it impacts the wealthy. Last time I checked, you had to be pretty wealthy to afford to keep a car in the City, or to choose to drive it in and park it.
perryair - You should check again. Because there are plenty of people who are not wealthy who own cars and drive into manhattan- the middle class, the elderly, disabled, people on fixed incomes, retired. And it's not these people that cause most of the congestion. It's a highly regressive tax. The wealthy will be uneffected by it, and will continue to drive as much as they want with impunity. Is that something you want? For the roads to be the near-exlcusive domain of the wealthy? I don't. I primarily ride my bike to commute as well as use the subway, but I can see this issue for what it is: A good idea, with it's heart in the right place that needs reworking. Certainly, let the zone be actual mid-town (34th - 59th st.) And let there be an exception for residents. Also, when the plan is effective the city will begin losing revune.. what then? I don't even think the plan will have a big impact. It would much better to actually enforce the traffic laws we have (which the police ignore) by stopping cars/ buses from going through red lights and blocking intersections. Also, ACTUALLY add bike lanes. Dedicated ones. And stop arresting bicyclists. Try taking away parking spots on one side of the street and add dedicated BRT lanes. That would be a sign that Bloomberg is serious about helping clean up the air and reduce traffic, and not just a Billionair who is completely out of touch with regular people.
Guest,
Thanks for dropping every bit of transportation angst that you have into your reply, but again - progressive tax means:
"A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family's tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income."
- http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ProgressiveTaxes.html
I would defy you to prove to me that the rich proportionally own fewer cars than the poor in New York City. It costs more to own and operate a car here than in any other city in the US. Therefore, poor people can not afford cars, and at the very least in a place where mass transit is so widespread, car ownership is a luxury, not a necessity.
Also, according to the Times, "almost one-fifth of the vehicles that entered Manhattan were just passing through the borough. For many drivers, Manhattan is simply a place between here and there.'" IF you can change just a few of those people's routes to go aroudn instead of through Manhattan, you've done a lot towards controlling congestion.
If congestion pricing hits, I know I’ll want to park above 86th Street to avoid the $8 fee. Alternatively, the $8 fee can be offset by choosing a less expensive parking garage. I just found this site - go to http://www.NYCGarages.com to search and compare all parking rates in New York City.
It's not just volume that causes the traffic nightmare, it's driver behavior, and tolls don't change behavior. The same ass drivers will be blocking the box, double parking and making screwing driving moves just like they do today.
oops i meant "screwy" not screwing
perry, I usually agree with your posts, so I don't want this to turn into a flame war or anything.
But the definition you used is specifically for an income tax. If you find other definitions or ask any economist, they will tell you that the idea behind a progressive task is that those with higher incomes are *able* to shoulder the *burdern* of a greater tax percentage, so that justifies them paying that greater burden. If a "tax" or "toll" is a greater burden on lower or middle income people than on higher income people, then it is more regressive than progressive. THat's just the way it is. If you want to harp over definitions we could both shout back and forth forvever. If you don't want to call it regressive, fine. DOn't. But that doesn't change the fact that people with less means will be hit harder by this than those with greater means, and that is not fair - especially considering most of us pay taxes for the roads in the first place. You are also wrong in your belief that lower middle class people don't own cars. You need to consider the outer burroughs and the entire metro-area.