Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Congestion Pricing - Are you for or against it?
Mr_Shiftright
Member Posts: 64,481
in General
It seems that New York City's mayor is very keen on the idea of using "congestion pricing" to alleviate traffic snarls and pollution in the Big Apple.
READ IT HERE
Would such a plan in your city change your habits or would you just grit your teeth and fork over the $$$? Do you resent such interference and taxation or do you find it "fair enough" and a reasonable solution to a growing problem?
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
READ IT HERE
Would such a plan in your city change your habits or would you just grit your teeth and fork over the $$$? Do you resent such interference and taxation or do you find it "fair enough" and a reasonable solution to a growing problem?
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Tagged:
0
Comments
It's not appropriate for all areas obviously (those w/o decent public transportation esp.), but for major urban zones, it's a great idea.
Of course, Los Angeles public transportation is pathetic.
In New York City however, I could see where the lower income driver would find public transportation a reasonable alternative and very workable.
We're nearing that where I live, in Washington, D.C.
It strikes me as similar to the premium you pay to fly First Class on American Airlines...you are still screwed but you have a nicer seat and real knives and forks. Whoopie.
It's not like the well to do are being chauffered to Manhattan in limos or anything.
If lower-income drivers don't have to pay for instance, that'll mean the streets will still be gridlocked, just with second-hand Toyotas instead of new BMWs. Is that really any better for anyone?
There's likely a way to give poorer drivers who genuinely need to drive (like those under a certain income level commuting from Manhattan to a job in a 'burb) a break w/o screwing unduly with the incentives of the system.
That's not the way I see it. If it's effective then the people removed from the streets will be the less affluent, meaning they aren't being taxed at all. If in return they are provided with better public transportation then this will have been paid for by the more affluent. Hard to call that regressive.
I do believe that driving will soon be perceived as more of a luxury than it is today. That's the way it started out. In fact I believe that the high fuel taxes paid in Europe were original considered a luxury tax because only rich people could afford cars.
Seems like the streets around Central Park are jammed with taxis and a few limos. I suppose you can get some work done in a limo, and you'll certainly have ample opportunity to bill some hours with the gridlock that you see there.
PS: I lived in Manhattan 33 years, so this topic interests me.
There is always the risk that people living outside the city will simply stay out of the city altogether to avoid paying the congestion charge, thus depriving the city of any revenues, not to mention the salutary effect that full streets and regular actvity have on crime rates
In other words, New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Chicago can try this.
I would suggest that Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Dallas, Phoenix, Baltimore and Houston think twice, lest they wreck their downtowns.
http://www.cclondon.com/
If the cameras catch you in violation and you pay the fine within 14 days, it's reduced to ~$100 from ~$200 (USD). Ouch.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
I can't even imagine how they deal with people who live there.
Bloomberg was making the rounds yesterday, telling folks up in Harlem that they should support this because it will make the air better and reduce their asthma rate which is horrible. Only trouble is that the folks he was talking to figured (correctly) that since they weren't in the target area they would get MORE cars and worse air.
This is just more of government think that midtown Manhattan IS New York and taht the rest of the population should just go away. I've watched it all my life.
I don't think the TSA lets you have real knifes anymore.
On topic...
I am really torn about this and not sure what my feelings are. I will need to think about it.
Manhattan: re fezo's comment....won't be the first time people have accused Manhattan's government of "economic apartheid". Maybe it's true that the "real" New York is now in Brooklyn? And maybe congestion pricing programs like this will insure that that becomes true?
I don't think that it has anything to do with privilege. It's all about the value an individual assigns to open roads as opposed to congested ones. In a capitalist society we pay for things that we perceive to have value. My job used to require me to frequently drive on the DC beltway at near rush hour. If you've never done this it involves going about 50 yards at a time for sometimes up to an hour. I'd find myself thinking, what if I could throw some money out the window and magically 25% of these cars would disappear. How much would I be willing to throw? The amount varied by my frustration/stress level on a given day but it was always more than $8. I ended up quitting that job because the commute was just too painful.
Is this an elitist attitude? I don't think so. After all there are plenty of things that poor people can't afford to do. There are already poor people that can't afford to drive. We're just talking about shifting the dividing line. Road space turns out to be a limited resource in some areas and in a capitalist society typically the best way to allocate these resources is by price. I do think that in return the government should offer more and better options for the public to still remain mobile. And I have no problem doing my share to pay for these options. I'd rather pay in dollars than in wasted time spent in congestion.
There's nothing intrinsically unfair about that, no more than that BMWs cost more than Toyotas.
The argument can reasonably be made that as a society we should do something to help more people buy BMWs, but no serious person suggests that BMW pricing is unfair.
I'm not opposed to government programs. I'd like to see people have food, shelter, clothing, education, health care and maybe a few other things. Driving the streets of Manhattan is not going to make my list of entitlements. In fact owning and driving a vehicle wont make the list either. So if the price of driving starts getting too expensive my suggestion is either stop driving or get a better job.
That one affects me much more than the Manhattan idea, especially since the part of NJ that I live in has few alternate routes.
This all strikes me as a slippery slope.
I will say that I've seen a privately owned bridge that worked just fine down in Florida. Out in teh panhandle there's an island that just had ferry service. The folks wanted a bridge in the worst way but teh state kept turning them down. They finally formed their own bridge authority, floated bonds and built the bridge. The state liked it so much they wanted to buy it but were turned down by the authority.
Truth be told if the Manhattan plan goes through I'd likely not change my habits. I don't go often enough to make it a significant expense - and Philly will still be free.... Oh, and the toll you pay to get into NYC would be counted towards the mid-town fee.
It will be interesting to see how much of a positive effect ("externality") that congestion pricing will have on public transportation in the areas where it's implemented.
The London Underground is already a great system (though at 6 bucks a one-way ticket, it oughta be...), but I'd bet that the congestion pricing helped it be better.
I blame the road and highway builders lobby and AAA.
But they did sell Los Angeles some buses!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
The turnpike on the other hand could probably be contracted to a kindergarten class and not run any worse.
If they are going to lease these things out I;d like to see some accountability built in. Without it these are just an invitation to print money.
I agree that public transit is mostly an abomination and for the reasons mentioned - high paying lobbyists to keep it at bay, lack of public will, cheap and plentiful gasoline... Most of us would take our won car anywhere rather than use mass transit.
Unless you have a reasonable public transportation like London you are punishing the working person.
Now I live on Staten Island, and have no choice but a toll bridge if I want to drive off the island - was my choice to move to SI, got more room, diff QOL, etc, so it was "worth it."
In theory, I understand cong pricing... in fairness, what I do for a living means I spend a ton of time in places other than midtown, and to be blunt, when I go in I have the option of billing it all as expenses. I see this costing the city: many of the folks who drive in are your middle/upper management driving in from LI, Westchester, and NJ. They are not going to stop driving in. They might stop buying lunch, they might choose to telecommute more often. They might choose to work from the satellite office. So they will be choosing not to spend time/money in the city.
What I hope is that measures like this drive more companies to understand that a centralized workforce, built around the "9-5" schedule is obsolete and counterproductive. The infrastructure exists for remote access to networks, decentralized (and productive) workers, less congestion, AND cleaner air.
Perhaps if the crooked pols who run New York State and NYC would stop stealing our money to pay for their hookers and to put their girl/boyfriends on the state payroll there would be money for improved mass transit. As it stands, every time there is a need for funding these bozos come up with a new fee (tax). Bloomberg can fly to work in his own helicopter so why should he care if we go broke getting to work.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Now that New York state won't be getting the $350 million from the federal government, the feds are now looking at alternative projects that could use the funding.
One of these projects is the widening of the Boulder Turnpike (aka US 36) from Boulder to the Denver suburbs. Possible uses include adding lanes (only 2 each way at the moment) or a dedicated car pool / HOV lane.
To me, the more pertinent issue is how can it be a congestion charge if it doesn't penalize everyone entering a certain area? Under the proposal, entering SF from the east bay would not have incurred the charge, so the fee targeted the people in the bedroom communities north of the bridge.
How does the NY proposal work? Is it similar to London, where a circle is drawn around downtown on the map and everyone inside it has to pay?
In principle, I am FOR that type of charge in the few places mentioned previously that have (a) a huge downtown congestion problem; and (b) very effective public transit. From what I know of the U.S., I could count the cities that qualify on one hand: NY, Boston (I base this one on third-party info), Chicago, SF, and....???? Someone mentioned DC?
Also, has anyone studied what traffic and parking are like just outside the boundary of the congestion zone? Do lots of people drive as far as they can drive and then hit the transit only once it would cost them to drive any further downtown? If so, that stinks for the residents and businesses around there, doesn't it?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Even if they manage to get the idea to fly in its current form, which is highly unlikely, they won't succeed in their goal because people will just cross two bridges to reach the City, thereby bypassing the surcharge (and still saving money, even though they have to pay two bridge tolls). They need to delineate an area which represents the toll zone, regardless of which direction you enter it from.
And they are chasing those same federal funds here with this cockamamey plan that it sounds like they are in NY.
And of course, the folks that would be impacted by the fee in its current form are the only ones NOT living in a part of the bay with train access to downtown. Brilliant. There is ferry service, so maybe they see that as an acceptable substitute.
And folks who actually live in SF will never have to pay the fee. I believe with the London plan even city residents that live outside the zone pay the fee if they enter the zone.
One final note: in SF we have already made the parking so limited and so expensive that most workday commuters ALREADY use the trains and buses. That might be a better approach to reducing congestion than this charge, which makes things difficult for tourists and the like. Tourism is an important component of the economy in San Francisco.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Wrong! If the whole congestion pricing scam was just chasing federal dollars we all lose. Where does federal funding come from? Our pockets! It's just a different pocket they are stealing it from. I am just amazed that people still think that there is free government money.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Agree. When there is enough congestion, the price of gas is high-enough, and the private sector prices parking based on congestion factors, you have sufficient factors to deter more people from entering an area in cars.
Government and its added costs are not needed. I think congestion is just another issue that government thinks they need to intervene in, and a method to increase their revenues and find jobs for their cronies.
Personally I already avoid going into Boston due to the traffic and expenses. Why would we want the government in our wallets again? That is masochistic.
The Man Who Could Unsnarl Manhattan Traffic (Wired)
There is a kind of "emergent intelligence" to big city life that I don't think can be captured by statistical analysis. "it" works out its best solutions.
OK take those numbers now and figure out how much it would cost to provide everyone in NYC public transportation. Would that number be $100B, to get mass transit up to the task in NYC? Plus $10B/year to run it?
What happens to the NYC transit system when the 1st terrorist bomb goes off in it? It seems just a matter of time. The system is crippled, and the added security would make the screening of that many additional people impossible.
I believe the government should separate the funding for roads, highways and bridges from mass transit, and allow each system to pay for itself. Then each system can pay its true costs to operate. I know here in NH we are paying quite a bit in gas-taxes, some of which goes for mass transit, and we may have a handful of buses operating in a few towns. So our gas tax money is going to support mass transit users in cities like Boston and NYC. But then again the state of Mass. should be reimbursing the fed. government for most of the cost overruns of the Big Dig.
That thought being said, gas would have to cost 4x as much here as in Europe to get anything like the transit networks they have, as residential development has been so thoughtlessly distant from commerce for so many decades.
I'd certainly pay extra for a really great public transit system. Right now, to travel 85 miles in California doesn't cost very much in public transit but it takes 3.5 hours to do it. 22 mph is not all that much faster than people traveled in Roman times or in the 1860s in America.
And driving is getting pretty brutal...if it isn't traffic, you have to worry about being picked off by massive Highway Patrol efforts to increase revenues.
Whenever I drive on Hwy 17 anymore, I feel like one of those bomber fleets going over Germany, trying to dodge the CHP. We all know that about 1 to 3% of us are going to get shot down every mission.
We receive less for the taxes we pay than others as we have massive defense and foreign obligations and parasites sucking us dry - not to mention domestic issues like public sector perks and pensions. We pay a lot less, but we get so much less.
Driving here is a nightmare too - most cities ardently refuse to synchronize lights and work on traffic controls, roads are second-world quality at best, traffic law enforcement is 90% a ridiculous money grab, and oblivious driving seems to be encouraged. My in-town afternoon commute can often average under 15mph per my car - and that's on 35-40mph roads...speeds go down when you hit every red light and get stuck in a line behind idiots going 28 in a 40. I wonder if anything would change if the money put into speedtrapping and cameras was put into improving traffic flow...and if public sector traffic "engineers" were held to any level of accountability. On that note, I have to be suspicious of this "congestion charge" proposal, given the lack of results provided by its supporters in other traffic-related areas. I also wonder about the impartiality when presented by a bicycle enthusiast/advocate. Remember the third type of lie.