Poll Suggests Waning Support For Congestion Pricing

Please check out:

CONGESTION TAX DOES NOT FOOL NEW YORKERS

3rd Truth: The Public Knows Better on City's Congestion Scheme

(2007-11-20)

Thank you for your interest.

-Corey Bearak, Policy Advisor

Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free

The congestion charge will live. It definitely will happen, its just a matter of when. So it gets bogged down in the court system for a while.... thats happened with lots of things.

Yes, all those things should be addressed and studied in a formal Environmental Impact Statement. Unfortunately, King Bloomberg didn't think one was necessary. That means that any attempt to implement congestion pricing will immediately get bogged down in the court system as soon as someone files a lawsuit requesting an EIS (which I'm sure people are lined up to do -- the papers are probably already drawn up).

Not that any of this matters, because the issue is almost already politically dead.

And once again, how about a traffic control plan that affects everyone and doesn't just relegate the little people to mass transit while allowing the wealthy to continue driving around as much as they please.

"""Newsflash to all of you people who obviously did not grow up in New York: A very large percent of the people who live in the Bronx, Broolyn, Queens, and Northern Manhattan own and drive cars. These people are not just rich or upper-class.

There seems to be a lot of ignorance on these boards about this.

That is all."""

And that very large percentage shouldn't be crowding downtown streets with their cars in Manhattan unless they have a really good reason... and if that's the case, then u can pay the toll. If you are using the car to just drive around in Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Northern Manhattan, the congestion charge does not apply to you. The problem is when people take those cars and jam up traffic in the inner city Manhattan area. Then you gotta pay up.

I like congestion pricing. The economic argument makes sense. It should help our buses move along the city streets and reduce joy-riding in the city. But we don't really have the infrastructure to do this yet. There needs to be more research into implementing the plan I think. We need loads of cameras at the 'borders'. We also need an easy system to pay the tolls. Someone needs to think through the increased traffic that is going to occur at subway stations just outside the congestion zone borders. Where will people be able to park? What about people that don't have good public transportation options... (example, someone living in Red Hook who works in Manhattan).

Anyway all those issues have to be addressed by building infrastructure, changing the congestion fare plans, issuing fee waivers, etc etc. Traffic models have to be drawn out, economists have to be called, etc etc etc. London, Singapore, Stockholm officials should be on hand.

Newsflash to all of you people who obviously did not grow up in New York: A very large percent of the people who live in the Bronx, Broolyn, Queens, and Northern Manhattan own and drive cars. These people are not just rich or upper-class.

There seems to be a lot of ignorance on these boards about this.

That is all.

That press release is one of the most totally friggin' meaningless I've ever read. Good try though Sean.

Here's the lede: "Fifty-seven percent of witnesses who testified at the recent hearings by the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission support the concept of congestion pricing as a tool to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, according to a detailed analysis by Environmental Defense."

SO WHAT? Of the 149 people who spoke at the hearings, 57% of this SELF-SELECTED sample thought congestion pricing was an OK concept, though most of them wanted changes to the Mayor's proposal. Hardly compelling news or compelling statistics. So 85 of the type of people who go to these types of hearings thought pricing could be OK in some form or another -- WHOOPEE.

New Analysis Shows Majority of Traffic Mitigation Commission Hearing Witnesses Suggested Improvements to Make Congestion Pricing Work

See news release at: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=7351

Sean Crowley

Marketing-Communications Director

Living Cities Program

Environmental Defense

The fat lady isn't singing yet for congestion pricing, but she's sure warming up her vocal chords. The more that public support wanes the easier and easier it's going to be for the State Assembly to kill it off. Even Bloomberg isn't really going to bat for it any longer. Today's round of news stories sounds like a death knell if I ever heard one.

Now maybe we can turn our attention to creating a traffic mitigation plan that will affect the rich as well as the poor and middle class. Because $8 a day don't mean shit to the wealthy -- they'll just keep driving.

"America is not Europe"? Well gee, I hadn't noticed. That's all you have to explain why a congestion charge won't work here?

"America is not Europe"? Well gee, I hadn't noticed. That's all you have to explain why a congestion charge won't work here?

JMH: "Congestion pricing has reduced congestion in central London as well as in Stockholm."

America is not Europe... Ask Renault.

JMH: "It's infuriating that the main objection to congestion pricing seems to be "waaaah, this will inconvenience me, I'm not willing to pay for something that I used to get for free."

I guess you don't understand that we are already paying for the roads?

It's "infuriating" to me that some politicians and activists are so selfish and greedy...

Bring back the Commuter Tax that was repealed by Pataki.

well, the best way to look at this is to think about london. has it had any affect on the car problem there..?

It's infuriating that the main objection to congestion pricing seems to be "waaaah, this will inconvenience me, I'm not willing to pay for something that I used to get for free."

Best news I heard all day.

Die congestion tax, die!

Yeah Ph (#7), it costs lots of money - and you just know that the additional money from fare hikes will be very well spent.

With the increase in fare, transit riders will also be excited to know that they will get: more trains and buses for less crowding, cleaner buses and trains, cleaner subway stations, quieter subway lines, audible announcements on the train and in the station, train schedules that stay on schedule, subway lines not subject to flooding, metrocard machines that work - among the many improvements one would expect with an increase in fare.

What? No? Despite a higher fare - service and conditions will stay the same? Isn't that special.

Don't forget that you can prove anything with a poll.

What next? Light rail? Oops didn't they get rid of trolley cars about fifty or sixty years ago?

No flames from me. A plan like this is inevitable and many will just have to bitch and moan about it like the do about everything.

I think the Bronx folks, coming from the experience I've had with my neighborhood, are mainly coming from Riverdale and--quite frankly--oppose everything. They oppose any sort of change whatsoever, and many of them prefer cars over trains, and trains over subways. I see more folks with monthly passes for Metro North than Metrocards, and Riverdalians love their Saabs.

I would think, and perhaps I'm wrong, most Broxites do not drive often or cannot afford cars. There are other areas similar to Riverdale, like Throgs Neck and Woodlawn, that don't have very accessible train lines, which might have something to do with it as well. Either way I wish they'd smarten up--I think any idea aimed at curbing emissions is worth woodshopping.

Now that I voiced an opinion, flame on, Gothamites!

Those results are kind of surprising. I would have thought SI would have the greatest opposition since they have no subway. Is there any reason why people in the Bronx are so opposed?

The dumbfucks at Streetsblog have always said that the more people come to know congestion pricing they'll come to embrace it.

Well GUESS WHAT!

well, the best way to look at this is to think about london. has it had any affect on the car problem there or are people just paying more to have the same gridlock?

to me it's kind of like expanding a highway's capacity - it doesn't solve gridlock.

in the case of manhattan, all this might do is have people pay more to drive in the city, yet they will do it anyway and the government will get a huge amount of money for it. i really doubt if it will prevent people from driving in the city.