January 11, 2008
Poll: Congestion Pricing More Appealing if Mass Transit Actually Improves
A new Quinnipiac poll reveals that people may support congestion pricing - if they get something in return. And that something is better mass transit.
It turns 58% of voters oppose congestion pricing (37% support), but 60% will support it if "money from the plan is used to improve mass transit in and around the city." Quinnipiac's Maurice Carroll explained, "Traffic is a horrendous problem, New Yorkers agree. But they reject all the ideas that are being talked about to ease it. Voters remain firm in their opposition to congestion pricing, but they would support it if - IF - the money is used to improve mass transit."
The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, formed as part of last year's deal and made up of appointees from various state and city officials, released a report with four other ideas to, uh, mitigate traffic congestion. Here are the options and their highlights:
- An alternate congestion pricing plan: The northern border would be 60th Street (not 86th Street as the Mayor's plan proposed), there would be no intra-zonal fee (the Mayor's plan had a $4 charge), drivers would be charged going through the central business district (the Mayor's plan had no charge); overall, it's an easier plan to implement.
- East River and Harlem River Toll Plan: Charge tolls - both ways, around the clock - on East River and Harlem River bridges; also easier to implement than the Mayor's proposed plan.
- License rationing: 20% of vehicles would be restricted from entering the zone, whose northern border is 86th Street, between 6AM and 6PM; enforcement by way of police officers and/or license plate cameras. There's less flexibility for businesses, there's possibility some households have more than one car, and the plan doesn't actually generate revenue.
- Combination plan: Basically doubling the parking tax in the central business district, eliminating the resident parking tax exemption in the CBD, raising meter rates, cutting down government parking permits in the CBD, charge a $2 fee in the CBD, adding a $8 fee for taxi trips starting or ending below 86th. Downside: The plan doesn't meet the requirement to reduce "vehicle miles traveled" by at least 6.3%, which the other options do.
Photograph by dogseat on Flickr
|
all well-intentioned, and I agree, improving mass transit is an important incentive (and no fare increase, please!!)
But how long can we ignore the elephant in the living room here? namely, the over-development of high-rise buildings (on the footprint of previously much smaller, less populated structures) in already congested neighborhoods. There is already no room on the sidewalk in some of those areas, and these new behemoths will most certainly contribute to this form of congestion, big-time.
Not to mention that already some subway platforms and stairways, as well as entrances, cannot currently accomodate the amount of riders who are entering stations and boarding trains.
If the city had any balls they would force developers to sink some money into subway stations when they build above or next to them. If there is massive construction going on next door why not expand the platforms and/or stairwells instead of reincorporating the old design into new building?
As a resident and a driver in Manhattan I can tell you IF the transit system WORKED I could use it to get to work out in lower Westchester each AM.
ALL the metro area public transit needs SERIOUS looking at before they can think about a commuter tax/garage tax, etc on drivers.
Getting to GCT in Manhattan, not the problem. Getting FROM the train to the office out in Westchester - HUGE problem.
I like the idea of passing some of the costs onto new construction, though I think the incentive system currently in place does the exact opposite- offers a tax abatement for new construction.
Even if congestion pricing worked, what's the idea behind it? Make the roads easier to travel for the rich and the subways more crowded for everyone else? The high cost of parking and parking tickets already provides a disincentive for most people to drive into the city.
if you think the money would go to mass transit you have to be insane. it's too easy to move that money to other things or have city unions use it as a bargaining chip for wages, etc. All that will happen is mass transit fares will go up with greater frequency as there becomes little competition from alternatives and they claim they need more money due to increased strains from ridership. Also, we've seen that the TBTA and port authority are already looking at increasing brige and tunnel tolls themselves since the city will deduct them(why shouldnt they collect the entire amount since the driver wont notice, leaving nothing to the city or mass transit). THe entire thing is just another bloomberg tax increase disguised in environmentalism.
the incentive system currently in place does the exact opposite- offers a tax abatement for new construction.
This one has always baffled me. There was an article last year in which the developers said they could not get condo and apartment projects done without the abatements. I find this impossible to believe. I can't believe that people buying multi-million dollar condos for cash are going to even notice higher prices. I've said this a dozen times: where are they going to go? These are the people that look down on the suburbs.
I think the idea of congestion pricing is yes, keep cars off the road. In theory it should allow people doing business whether it is trucks making deliveries or plumbers making house calls to be more efficient. Fewer cars on the road should improve air quality and cut the country's use of oil which is good for everyone. Spinning it as traffic free roads for the rich conjures an image of rich guys tooling around Manhattan in Ferraris in the middle of the work day. There might be a few but they aren't the target. It's middle and upper middle class people that should not be driving into the city daily. I don't think there is much you can do to prevent the occasional day tripper from driving into town. And the poor and middle class aren't being targeted because they are poor and middle class. They're being targeted because there are so many more of them.
Are there still actually people that believe the government takes the money from certain taxes and puts it in a little bucket marked "road repairs" or something like that?
Am I reading that right? An $8 surcharge for any taxi ride that starts OR ends in most of Manhattan in the Combination Plan?
To the reverse commuter to Westchester: I see your problem, but it is your employer's problem, not ours. Maybe your company needs to have a shuttle service to the nearest MetroNorth station, or organize car pooling for its employees. Or arrange for you to work at home. Whatever, his decision to locate is costing the region by forcing you to pollute and clog the roads.
Tgirl: look back at photos of NY circa 1900 and see the people choking the sidewalks. There weren't a fraction of the tall buildings you blame for congestion. Blaming new tower development is a weak argument.
sidewalks (where they existed) were indeed crowded in 1900, but the population of NYC at that time was concentrated in lower Manhattan. Immigrants were rapidly streaming into lower Manhattan through the ports and for the most part remained downtown. The infant mortality rate was high too, around 40%. "Uptown" (above Canal street) was a more genteel and managable situation, but not for long either.
Regardless, its 2008 and we can do better; some neighborhoods and subways are untenable due to pedestrian congestion. Attracting more and more people to already congested areas just makes no sense.
I like the idea of reducing traffic and funding transit (duh, who doesn't). What I don't like are financials barriers that don't affect the rich equally as the rest of us.
Ban all cars, have odd/even license plate days, turn all of Manhattan into a pedestrian mall, whatever -- just make sure that what gets done affects everyone equally. Because the fact is that $8/day or even double that simply doesn't have any effect at all on the Donald Trumps and Mike Bloombergs of the world. They'll be free to drive on less-congested streets while everyone else will be forced onto more congested trains and buses.
11 - can i ask why you live in NYC? you obviously dont understand that urban means crowds. maybe rent a farmhouse out in kansas if you want desolate streets.