The new congestion pricing plan. It’s certainly a good start. (Streetsblog posted this graphic on Thursday.)
Economic relief is on the horizon for the MTA’s beleaguered capital construction plans. After a week of bad news concerning rising construction costs and project delays, state commission on Mayor Bloomberg’s controversial congestion pricing plan approved a version of the plan that could send as much as $491 million a year straight to the MTA.
William Neuman, writing on The Times’ Cityroom blog, has more:
A plan to thin Manhattan’s perpetual throngs of traffic by charging fees to drivers and increasing prices for on-street parking was approved by a 13-2 vote on Thursday afternoon by a state commission appointed to review different proposals. The plan to decrease traffic in much of Manhattan, first proposed in a slightly different form by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg last April, would charge drivers $8 to go below 60th Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The commission, the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, also recommended imposing a $1 surcharge for taxi trips starting or ending in the area and increased parking rates below 60th Street. The plan produced by the commission was generally the same as the mayor’s original plan with a few differences. The mayor wanted the pricing zone to begin at 86th street, instead of 60th, and the original plan had fees for trips within the zone as well as for cars entering the area.
The plan also calls for the money raised through fees — estimated at $491 million annually — to be dedicated to improvements in mass transit. The commission also recommended that the city make adjustments to ease the impact that expected increases in parking congestion that could occur as commuters abandon their cars at the fringes of the congestion area. Commissioners also recommended that state legislators consider making changes to tax laws to assist low-income drivers who could be disproportionately affected by congestion pricing.
For more of the details of the new plan, check out this post on Streetsblog or read through the PDF report available here.
Meanwhile, this is of course fantastic news for the MTA, and it couldn’t come at a better time. But before we break out the champagne — or the granite and porcelain — let’s remember that this plan has a long way to go before it becomes law. The plan must now head to the City Council for approval, and council members have been loathe to support something that so many of us want. Ominously, one of the two members on the panel to vote against the plan is a representatives from the city, and as Streetsblog has noted, council members seem to be willfully ignoring their constituents.
But all hope is not lost. Herman D. Farrell Jr., a Democrat from Manhattan, is not flat-out against the plan. “I expect to get more information before I can make an honest vote,” he said to Neuman.
For the plan, a few details need to fall into place. First, the money — projected at a hair under $500 million — must go to the MTA. The new report is adamant in this regard. “All net revenues generated by the congestion pricing fee and the taxi surcharge should be deposited into a dedicated MTA account similar to the agency’s dedicated real estate tax accounts. These funds should only be used for capital investments for system improvement, expansion, and state of good repair projects, excluding normal replacement,” it says.
Second, the city has to institute residential parking permit plans and higher on-street parking rates. If people who would otherwise get charged the congestion fee end up driving to the edge of the fee zone and parking on the streets, neighborhoods will be overrun with cars, and the city won’t be taking in money. Off the top of my head, I would recommend at least $4 an hour for on-street parking and a tough residential parking permit program. A cost that high would deter drivers.
I’m guardedly optimistic about this plan’s chances. Every politician in New York knows what the MTA could do win $491 million a year, and they all know the MTA needs that money. While this plan is a far cry from Ted Kheel’s fantastic plan, it’s a great start. Now, let’s just hope the City Council agrees. Maybe this bad week for the MTA has a silver lining after all.
20 comments
$500 million at $8… I guess that’s something.
Do you still believe that a congestion charge of $16 could generate $2.4 billion, as Kheel promises?
Twice as much, twice the hours. That’s about $2 billion right there.
No, the vast majority of traffic into the CBD occurs between 6 am and 6 pm. You can’t just multiply by 2.
CP is a great theory that doesn’t and will not match reality. The report says “All net revenues generated by the congestion pricing fee and the taxi surcharge should be deposited into a dedicated MTA account “. That word “should” isn’t very legally binding now, is it? I understand that it isn’t law yet but couldn’t the word have been “must” just as easily? It is designed to create wiggle room so that there will be a huge, huge pool of money where none existed before and pols will have access (like the Port Authority) and the feds will have even more of an argument against funding the MTA. Oh yeah, and the streets will be free and clear for the wealthy to drive unimpeded. Its not a coincidence that the Mayor is a billionaire making the city streets more business friendly while kicking out lower income constituents. CP is more unfriendly than it is friendly but it is “cool” if labeled green and European. Toll the East River crossings – more cost effective with same results but then green movement people can really make their names on that one can they?
Ed,
The word “should” is in the report because of the nature of the document. The report is a recommendation from a panel to the legislatures as to how they should formulate and adopt congestion pricing. None of the report is legally binding, but the idea is to encourage lawmakers to make it legally binding.
Meanwhile, the argument that “lower income constituents” won’t be driving is, for lack of a better word, utter bullshit. Lower income residents of New York City don’t own cars; they don’t drive them into Manhattan; and they stand to benefit the most from congestion pricing. It’s cost-prohibitive to own a car in NYC, and people without the means to do so simply don’t have automobiles. Even anti-CP folks admit that congestion pricing will impact the richer people who can afford to spend the time and money driving into Manhattan.
Ed, how many people in the South Bronx drive into Manhattan, and how many people in Riverdale do?
[…] a comment on my latest on congestion pricing, a reader employs a favorite argument of the anti-congestion pricing crowd: “It’s not a […]
Utter bullshit, huh? $8 per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year equals $2000. If someone is making ends meet, $2000 is indeed a lot of money. And the person who replied after you I’m sure makes the point that you intended but I did not. You think I mean low income but I said “lower” income. There is a difference regarding Riverdale vs. the South Bronx as far as what constitutes incomes. I will stand by my original statement – “lower” income people will be affected. There are people out there who require their cars who live check-to-check not out of irresponsibility but out of circumstance. How about handicapped people that require their vans for their disability? Will they have to pay? And you think most of them are high-earners, right? Your willingness to buy into this flashy, CP is not thought out.
I understand “should” and I made it clear that I understood it. but read the recent NY Post article from Feb 3rd where a state legislator raises the same concerns that I did. You are fooling yourself if you think that this won’t become a slush fund. And why wouldn’t the report say “must”? Shouldn’t that emphatic stress be put into this plan? Of course it should but it isn’t because it leaves wiggle room for the legislators to enact it so later they have the potential to dip into it.
And how about CP infrastructure bidders recently all stating that this construction of the system will not allow CP to pay any monies into the MTA for the first 2 years? So guys, no new funds for two years. Subways have reached a 35 year peak in ridership and you agree with forcing more people on the trains with no new income source for at least 2 years.
Putting tolls on the east river crossings – same if not more reduction in traffic and incredibly less costs to set up. But not so cool as CP, is it? Many people want to be on the forefront of CP because it is not as pedestrian as tolling and because it seems more green than tolling but it is a fallacy and more costly than toll booths.
Lower income people aren’t driving either. PERIOD. New Yorkers living “paycheck to paycheck” aren’t car owners in this city; they aren’t the ones spending over $3 per gallon gas or hundreds of dollars on car maintenance, New York State insurance and costly registration fees annually. Can you point me toward these people?
People who need their cars for work will simply foist the congestion charges on to their customers. As for handicap people, they get an exception that’s been well reported by those covering this debate.
Read this post or check out Streetsblog’s coverage of CP. It’s not a fallacy; it’s more green; it’s worked in other cities. New Yorkers who want to drive when they don’t have to are just going to have to deal, and those who have to drive will figure out a way to make it work.
by the way, you are looking for a fight, aren’t you? Utter bullshit? and you characterize me a member of the anti-CP crowd? I don’t have a crowd that I discuss this issue with – I actually have friends that are for CP – that is until I explain to them the lack of forethought surrounding it. You think imaginary forces are gathering against you so you are looking to make a name for yourself so you need CP to pass so you can feel important, like you put your stamp on NY. That is why you aren’t rational and why you emotionally respond to an argument.
Also, regarding the Metro article. The Metro will benefit from CP due to increased ridership on the subway which means they can raise their rates to their advertisers which means increase revenue which means increased profit. Metro has its own self-interest at heart, not the community. An article in there must be carefully considered.
One last time, when I write the word “lower”, I mean “lower” than wealthy. I don’t mean “low” like you do. I write the word “lower” relative to the rich and “lower” can be applied to middle income and they will DEFINITELY be affected.
Are you crazy that people living check to check are only low income? Do you read anything regarding how much personal debt the average American has? Get out of you tower and come down to the streets and live in the real world.
Its not more green – check out the study regarding tolling that found it was just as green, saved money and reduced traffic. Again, not as glamorous for you I bet.
The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose media spreads conservative-slanted news around the world. Its own interest is in opposing regulations that increase urban quality of life or improve the lower classes’ quality of life at the expense of the rich. Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house.
I guess that means that the NYT’s hiring of Bill Kristol, a rabid conservative has now made that paper a no-read for you. If you believe that all of the reporters, hard working men and women, of the NY Post write to adhere to Murdoch’s wants, you’re limiting yourself. Some of the best LOCAL political reporters operate on that paper. I don’t agree with their editorial point of view and most of that paper is a rag. I don’t stand for the Post just as I don’t stand for the Metro. I simply cited an article that obviously you won’t read because it is in a paper that you have already put in a box in your head. I guess that is who you are and you don’t investigate other arguments and their validity. That is called self-righteousness.
And that is what CP is. If tolling works with the same outcome and lower cost, I propose that you have absolutely NO argument to stand upon. If your aim is true to reduce traffic and for green reasons, then you must agree with the studies. If you don’t then you have another agenda which is personal and not for the greater good.
Can you please provide a link to the report that claims tolling works with the same outcome and lower cost? Everything I’ve seen on the subject says tolling doesn’t work nearly as well.
Here is one link and it took me 2 minutes to find.
http://www.nydailynews.com/…if_it_me-1.html
Ok. That’s a link to an opinion poll, but I found the East River Toll plan in the interim report from the traffic mitigation panel. (See pages vii-viii of the PDF.) Their discussion of the weaknesses is rather relevant, and I do like the revenue and traffic mitigation generated by East River tolls. However, for any politician in the Bronx, Queens or Brooklyn, supporting that is tantamount to political suicide. It’s much easier to sell the congestion fee than it is to sell the walling off of all of Manhattan and access routes between the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn behind a toll barrier. I see your point though.
It is not just an opinion poll but a citation of the toll study that found that revenues generated by tolling would be double CP. If you want to find the original report it won’t be difficult. My point was that it won’t be difficult to find if a 2 minute search turned up a citation. It was conclusive and undisputed when published in the last 3 months.
CP may be an easier sell but it isn’t being sold for its benefits but for its cache. To create the effects that CPer’s are proposing, if there is a better way, why not try to sell it? I see why – because ego is involved in this by Bloomberg and he wants to make his name on this. Come on, he has a beautiful new skyscraper with his name on it. Okay, its green but its also prominent. CP is a ruse that is a shiny, glamorous way of dealing with a gritty, down-to-earth basic issue that could be and should forced upon the public as putting up those tolls on pre-existing gateways. Tolls have been going on for probably hundreds of years (private roads and all).
I believe the best plan of the bunch would have been tolling the free East and Harlem River crossings, but the proposed modified CP plan is my second choice.
But you, Ed . . . with your false populist arguments on behalf of “lower” income people (anyone less wealthy than Bloomberg? lowly millionaires?) Would be throwing out the same canards to bash the toll plan if that was the final proposal.
I think Ben had it right – you’re full of shite.
It isn’t false populist and don’t wait for this argument to play out and then insult someone. Its easy to sit on the sidelines and attack. I was right all along this is what happens to every single CPer that I talk to. Every single one.
I don’t know what you are full of because you didn’t put yourself out there. Don’t ascribe words to me that I didn’t write – I didn’t imply nor write of lowly millionaires. It is understood what I meant regarding live check to check regardless of low or middle income. Don’t put words in my mouth and then attack me for saying them. You have added nothing, nothing, to this discussion except an insult.
And I agree that the tolliing will have the same effect. That wasn’t my only argument and I concede that point. All other benefits go with tolling.
By the way, how come I can’t write that Alon Levy is an idiot but Gary can say that I am full of shit? Selective posting and anything to make you feel more secure I guess.
Ed, you brushed off that article because,
Metro has its own self-interest at heart, not the community. An article in there must be carefully considered.
So I noted that an article in the NYP must be carefully considered, too.