Commuting - NYC Congestion Tax? YES!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/04/20/2007-04-20_mike_eyes_money_drive-1.html

While I support any action that reduces traffic and the associated pollution in any inner city, I would say that the target demographic for any charge is flawed. A monetary sanction only works on people who would consider the expense too much to bear, but usually, inner cities are dominated by hulking SUVs and top end cars whose occupants won't even blink at paying the charge everyday. In London, there may be less general traffic, but it just gives the SUVs more room to roam. I might start hunting them soon.

I wrote a letter supporting this proposal.

I was listening to NY1 this morning and one of the drivers interviewed said she'd pay the toll because she'd rather drive when asked if public transportation wasn't available where she was.


NY1 spoke to drivers this morning as they came off the Brooklyn Bridge about what they thought about the plan.

"It's ridiculous,” said one driver. “We are already paying enough tolls as it is. Why would I want to pay more?"

"They should do it,” countered another driver. “It will cut down on the traffic."

“I don't think so,” said a third. “It's going to be still big traffic."

"It might actually be a good idea. Just for the clutter, you know what I mean? People would avoid it," said one bicyclist.

As long as the tolls collected go to a worthwhile cause, and not into some politician's pocket, I think it's a fine idea.

It has been around in London for more than a year, maybe two or more.
It's not new, and it works.

Also in London there is a tax credit for companies that provide safe bike parking and things like showers for bike commuters.

I'm sure NYC (Bloomberg) will leave out the 2nd part about the tax credit, safe bike parking and showers.

This is a great idea.

According to a recent analysis of NYC traffic, 56% of all auto trips in NYC are 3 miles or less. Those trips could easily be replaced by public transit, bicycles or even walking in many cases! And apparently "for the region as a whole, 80% of auto commuters have a transit option that would take no more than 15 minutes longer than their auto trip." So lots of these people driving into NYC don't need to be driving.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/19/schaller-profiles-a-city-in-flux/

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On the surface it sounds like a great idea. I have to wonder about the practicality of it as well as the effectiveness with respect to reducing traffic. I believe that jacking the cost of on-street parking to match or nearly-match lots in Midtown is just as important if not more important for reducing traffic.

I was in London two years ago. There are still a lot of cars driving around, congestion pricing or not. However, I'd not been there before CP so I have no basis for comparison.

On the radio this morning (1010 WINS) they asked a driver what he thought about the proposed $8 congestion charge. He said it was too expensive and that he would switch to the train...

That's exactly the idea.

Oboeguy,
I can't find the stats at the moment, but I read somewhere that auto traffic in London's central business district decreased by about 30% after congestion pricing, but the amount of human traffic stayed relatively even. Sounds good to me.

I do agree that it's more important to increase the cost of on street parking, which is practically free right now.

Is this $8 on top of the $6 is already costs to take the Lincoln tunnel (is it still $6?)
I'm all for the people who use the roadways being the ones to pay for it, but I don't think it will affect pollution and traffic that much, just move more of it uptown to the GW and FDR and West Side Hwy.
That being said (written), it's good to see the pols thinking outside the box for once.

On the radio this morning (1010 WINS) they asked a driver what he thought about the proposed $8 congestion charge. He said it was too expensive and that he would switch to the train...

That's exactly the idea.


I guess for those short trips $8 is quite a raise in the effective cost of the trip.



Oboeguy,
I can't find the stats at the moment, but I read somewhere that auto traffic in London's central business district decreased by about 30% after congestion pricing, but the amount of human traffic stayed relatively even. Sounds good to me.


NICE. A 30% reduction would be fantastic.



I do agree that it's more important to increase the cost of on street parking, which is practically free right now.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

I would say that the target demographic for any charge is flawed. A monetary sanction only works on people who would consider the expense too much to bear, but usually, inner cities are dominated by hulking SUVs and top end cars whose occupants won't even blink at paying the charge everyday. In London, there may be less general traffic, but it just gives the SUVs more room to roam. I might start hunting them soon.

I would be in favor of it in theory. Yes, the poor are always "victims"... oh well.

I think my bigger concern is that the public as a whole paid tax money to build and maintain these roads. Now, they're being asked to pay more to use them? For example, you don't typically see a road built, then ten years later have it made into a toll road. It's made toll to pay for itself. This is in-effect making these roads toll-based after the fact. Something about that rubs me the wrong way.

That said, if I lived or worked here I would still be in favor of it.

I would be in favor of it in theory. Yes, the poor are always "victims"... oh well.

I think my bigger concern is that the public as a whole paid tax money to build and maintain these roads. Now, they're being asked to pay more to use them? For example, you don't typically see a road built, then ten years later have it made into a toll road. It's made toll to pay for itself. This is in-effect making these roads toll-based after the fact. Something about that rubs me the wrong way.

That said, if I lived or worked here I would still be in favor of it.

They're being asked to pay for the priviledge to drive, not to use the roads. When it comes down to it, the only way to get some people out of their cars is to hit them where it hurts - in their wallet.

When I lived in Boston I felt the city could acomplish alot by raising the cost or better yet eliminating street parking, raising the cost of public parking structures and lots, and imposing heafty taxes on private parking structures and lots. The conjestion taxing is a nide idea, but how do you collect it? Do you place toll boths on the streets in the boundary areas? Seems like its much easier to use the exisiting logistical infrastructure for collecting money from people at the begining and/or end of their trips. Then you wouldn't need a new public authority.. or have I now found the real reason Mr. Blomberg wants to do this...

London uses a network of cameras. You pay via phone/web the day you enter the city (up to the following night), or you get a ticket. Users can also buy multi-day passes.

London uses a network of cameras. You pay via phone/web the day you enter the city (up to the following night), or you get a ticket. Users can also buy multi-day passes.

"Why do I always like, somebody's watching meeeeeeeeee?"

Disturbing as the "Big Brother" angle may seem, at least it works pretty well with the EZ Pass toll system (I found out the hard way, though not intentionally!).

[QUOTE=JeffS]I would be in favor of it in theory. Yes, the poor are always "victims"... oh well.

QUOTE]

I haven't lived in NYC since '69 (is Lindsey (sp?) still mayor??)
but somehow I don't think that the poor have lots of cars.


"We have met the enemy, and he is us". Pogo

Is this $8 on top of the $6 is already costs to take the Lincoln tunnel (is it still $6?)


It is my understanding, based on what I heard on the radio this morning, that the congestion fee would be $8 minus entrance tolls (Bloomberg will not officially announce the proposal until Earth Day). So if you already paid $6 to get through the tunnel, the fee would only be an additional $2.

Sweet!!

Now, if we could just get the politicians to man up and look seriously at raising the federal gasoline tax, we might be able to make some real progress on things like global warming and our dependence on Muslim oil.

This sight will tell you everything about it in London. Enforcement, payment. Everything. Even a map. This may be the official sight. ?

http://www.cclondon.com/

It's eight pounds a day only during the daytime. I pasted paymnet enforcement and penalties here. It's computers and cameras, it's well thought out.

TfL is bringing in extra buses to the capital‘s streets, introducing more routes and improving the frequency and reliability of other routes.You can find out more and get a bus map for your area or by calling London Bus Customer Information on
020 7918 4300.
The Congestion Charging Operating Hours are 7:00AM - 6:00PM Charging Days are Monday to Friday (excluding Public Holidays). The Congestion Charging Zone is clearly defined by signs and / or road markings at entrance and exit points. The standard daily charge is £8.

You can pay your Congestion Charge:
Online
At selected shops, petrol stations and car parks
By post (click to download form now)
By telephone
By SMS text message from your mobile phone
At BT Internet kiosks

You can pay your Congestion Charge for more than one day at a time by, for example, paying for a week, for a month or even for a whole year in one transaction. You can pay your Congestion Charge up to 90 days in advance, or on the day you need it

Payment of the Congestion Charge allows you to enter, drive within, and exit the Congestion Charging Zone as many times as you wish on that day.

There are no tollbooths or barriers around the Congestion Charging Zone and no physical tickets or passes are required. Instead, you pay to register your vehicle registration mark on a database for your journeys within the Congestion Charging Zone, on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis.

Cameras read your vehicle registration mark as you enter, drive within or exit the Congestion Charging Zone and check it against the database. Once your vehicle registration mark has been matched, showing that you have paid or do not have to pay the charge (because your vehicle is exempt or 100% discounted), the photographic image of your vehicle is automatically wiped from the database.

Following a final check at midnight (the following charging day), the computer keeps the vehicle registration mark of vehicles that should have paid but have not done so. We then manually check each recorded image and issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) of £100 to the registered keeper of the vehicle. As with parking penalties, this payment will be reduced to £50 for prompt payment within 14 days. Failure to pay the PCN within 28 days will result in the penalty being increased to £150

Vehicles with three or more outstanding Congestion Charging penalty charges may be clamped or removed. Staff working on behalf of TfL are authorised to clamp and remove vehicles both within the Congestion Charging Zone and across the whole of Greater London.

How much does the system in Londaon cost to operate? Does it make a profit or does it just break even?

Oboeguy,
I can't find the stats at the moment, but I read somewhere that auto traffic in London's central business district decreased by about 30% after congestion pricing, but the amount of human traffic stayed relatively even. Sounds good to me.
*************************************************

NICE. A 30% reduction would be fantastic.


Not good. If auto traffic went down and pedestrain traffic remained constant, then the people went elsewhere. This means more sprawl which, makes for harder and, discourages bicycleing.

As was already mentioned, if the bridge/tunnel toll is included, it ends up being only $2 extra, not sure that's gonna discourage too many drivers.

I think it is a solution in search of a problem. Anyone driving into Manhattan is going to be on the hook for at least $25 right now as it is. It is between $15 and $20 just to park, plus $6 to $8 for tolls. I don't know anyone who commutes to Manhattan who drives. It's just plain foolish to do so. People take the train, bus, etc. In fact, just to own a car in Manhattan will cost about $400/month just to store the thing.

I think it is a solution in search of a problem. Anyone driving into Manhattan is going to be on the hook for at least $25 right now as it is. It is between $15 and $20 just to park, plus $6 to $8 for tolls. I don't know anyone who commutes to Manhattan who drives. It's just plain foolish to do so. People take the train, bus, etc. In fact, just to own a car in Manhattan will cost about $400/month just to store the thing.

I visited Paris back in '04, for the Tour. I recall walking by a real estate office and seeing one of the signs in the window advertising a parking slot for sale...for $150,000 (plus yearly fees). :eek:

This is a great idea.

According to a recent analysis of NYC traffic, 56% of all auto trips in NYC are 3 miles or less. Those trips could easily be replaced by public transit, bicycles or even walking in many cases! And apparently "for the region as a whole, 80% of auto commuters have a transit option that would take no more than 15 minutes longer than their auto trip." So lots of these people driving into NYC don't need to be driving.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/04/19/schaller-profiles-a-city-in-flux/

It was my impression that in peak times in major cities NY, London, Mumbai, etc - driving is generally a lot slower than cycling/walking/public transit. People don't drive in these cities because it's fast - they do it because they have nice clothes and want you to think so...

It is certainly my impression that in central Toronto (not a huge city) that cycling/transit/walking times are comparable or shorter when considering door to door travel times vs. driving time. Lots of people drive in downtown toronto and it's not to save time.

BTW - taking cabs is often a lot faster than driving your own car (no parking time + no travel across huge parking lot, taking elevator from parking garage time).

From my (amateur) observations - it looks like driving in new york city is generally slower than walking.

Sweet!!

Now, if we could just get the politicians to man up and look seriously at raising the federal gasoline tax, we might be able to make some real progress on things like global warming and our dependence on Muslim oil.

lol - didn't realise that in addition to our society worshipping oil - oil worships gods too!

From my (amateur) observations - it looks like driving in new york city is generally slower than walking.

Which is why people who commute to the city rarely drive. The first thing people who visit the city do is drop the car off in a parking garage and take alternate transportation. This will only serve to reduce the number of visitors to the city, and do little to nothing about the traffic there.

Not good. If auto traffic went down and pedestrain traffic remained constant, then the people went elsewhere. This means more sprawl which, makes for harder and, discourages bicycleing.

This is NYC we're talking about. We have great mass transit in most areas (especially in Manhattan). I think a drop in auto traffic would be well correlated with an increase of mass transit use and foot traffic. More foot traffic is better for local businesses, which is why they are generally in favor of reducing auto traffic (and opposed to a car-free Central Park b/c of unfounded fears of extra street traffic).

Most of the traffic in the CBD originates in NYC. Most trips avg less than 3 miles. Most commuters who drive in are rich. I would suspect that this won't have a big impact as the people who are driving in are already rich enough not to give a sh*t (rich bankers driving down from upper east side). But, at least this can drive more revenue that hopefully the city will put towards beefing up mass transit. Regardless though, if this is true, this is an impressive first step towards NYC smartening up.

Now the city just needs to charge market rate for curb side parking.

Having visited London very briefly before and after the congestion charge was imposed, I've come away with the following impressions:

1. Traffic does move faster, so less congestion, less fuel wasted idling in traffic jams, and less pollution.

2. Taxi drivers are making more money. People are looking at the congestion charge, the cost of parking in London, and the overall cost of operating a car, and are opting to take a cab instead. Faster traffic and less fuel wasted idling in traffic means lower overhead costs for cabbies.

3. Tradespeople and delivery people are spending less time sitting in traffic, more time getting their jobs done, so they and their employers are making more money.

4. More motorcycles and bicycles on the streets, and more people using public transit.

$8 and a break on tolls is a lot less than they charge in London, so people over here might not be as motivated to give up their cars.

There is not a feasible alternative? NYC has one of the best mass transit systems in the US. Millions of people take the subway, including many, many white women. Sorry, but because you are afraid of "black people" and homeless people, that really does not justify you driving your car into the city, poisoning everyone with your putrid exhaust (sort of ironic you are refering to bio-hazards, given that is exactly what a car is).

BTW, I take the subway all the time, and I can't recall the last time I ever saw a white woman being harassed by a "black person". Not saying it hasn't happened to you, but when I am commuting on the train, it is generally a bunch of people doing the same thing. Commuting.

BTW, I take the subway all the time, and I can't recall the last time I ever saw a white woman being harassed by a "black person". Not saying it hasn't happened to you, but when I am commuting on the train, it is generally a bunch of people doing the same thing. Commuting.

I've never seen this also and I've been taking the trains each day since 1991. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I've ridden the A train plenty of times (not at night) and nothing ever happened. Maybe the poster should take an express bus to Queens or Brooklyn.

As for the congestion charge, I don't know it will work because the majority of surface traffic are not private motorcars. If you look closely, it consist of yellow cabs, private limos, buses and delivery trucks. The delivery trucks, yellow cabs and private limos will simply pay the charge and pass this onto local businesses. As for the buses, they will probably receive an exemption so how much traffic will the congestion charge curb? Not much.

It is a known fact the A-train going to and from Brooklyn is a nightmare for any decent, law-abiding person traveling alone at night. A police officer stationed in every single traincar would only be a start. Poster ruroni is 100% accurate in her assessment of that FAILED component of the transportation infrastructure. As a senior manager with staff in Manhattan who lived in Brooklyn and other boroughs, I approved expenses for car service rather than having my staff be put at risk at that mobile crime-scene-on-rails.

"...Setting up an authority responsible for administering the plan...."Now we get to the real meat & potatoes behind this story. Just another chance to create a huge, bloated, multi-million-dollar government agency to administer a bunch of $2.00 and $8.00 taxes.

Good. If the rich are the users, I say let the rich pay.

Which is why people who commute to the city rarely drive. The first thing people who visit the city do is drop the car off in a parking garage and take alternate transportation. This will only serve to reduce the number of visitors to the city, and do little to nothing about the traffic there.
I work at Hudson Street just south of Houston, and I have to strongly disagree, given the fact that from 4:30 to 7:30 nearly every day, Varick Street and the side streets that feed it are at a near standstill with commuter traffic. If those people aren't commuting to and from NYC, I'd like to know what they're doing!

If you're not at least a female, you probably don't know what I'm talking about -on the sexual harassment; and if you're not a white female, then you don't know about the sexual harassment and the interracial assault that quite frankly, I'm not sure what I did to deserve.

Facts are facts, they're not opinions, works of fiction, or personal agendas. All I really wanted to say was that for me to want to feel safe should not cost a fortune and an additional $8 dollars -nor should I be made to feel guilty or bad about wanting some control over my private space and who gets to fondle me. Maybe I could have left out the FACT that my experience has been strictly with seemingly black men -and no one else.

Beyond this, I'm not touching this subject any longer. You can turn the blind eye all you want, you can call me a liar, or downplay my hours of misery; I'm done.
Mod Note: Normally, moderators don't comment on threads about why they remove what they do, but I feel this needs to be said. Most of you know that I am female, so please understand my context. I am leaving this part of ruroni's post because I am aware that this behavior exists. I personally know of at least 5 women who have experienced this in NYC subways, and I've never even lived there. I've read at least 2 mainstream newspaper articles on the problem, as well. So, I can certainly understand ruroni's point about subway harassment as being a reason for driving a personal car in NYC. I cannot even begin to verbalize to the male members of this forum what it is like to experience this sort of thing, and to dread it and men you don't know in public every waking day of your life after it happens to you. I wish you New Yorkers the best of luck in getting your local government to deal with what is clearly a foul epidemic on your subway system.

However, the kind of racially charged statements made on this thread have no place on Bike Forums. We are a diverse community of cyclists - we are females and males comprised of all races, many ethnicities and religious beliefs, and political viewpoints. We must all find ways of getting along in such a setting, even if we disagree with each other. That is why I heavily edited this thread. Such statements do nothing to maintain a reasonably peaceful virtual community such as we have here.

I sincerely hope this doesn't totally ruin a most interesting thread, but if it does, so be it.

^^^
Very well said, donnamb. Thanks!

Now we get to the real meat & potatoes behind this story. Just another chance to create a huge, bloated, multi-million-dollar government agency to administer a bunch of $2.00 and $8.00 taxes.
I suppose this would be the libertarian/paleoconservative viewpoint on it. My (leftist and, not entirely coincidentally, optimistic) take on it is that the 2 and 8 dollar taxes will be in part funding a public authority tasked with improving quality of life for New Yorkers by reducing automobile traffic.

It is a known fact the A-train going to and from Brooklyn is a nightmare for any decent, law-abiding person traveling alone at night.

I will not speak to the apparent epidemic of sexual harassment that unbeknownst to me goes on on the A train but I can say without qualification that I have never, ever personally had a problem on the A train. And I grew up here, have ridden it drunk, sober, early, late, long and short and while New York was a crime ridden cesspool and during its current dubious renaissance. I'm knocking wood now, of course, but I've always thought the subway's bark was much worse than its bite. That being said, I don't like riding it, but that's mostly because my commute by bike is so much faster and more pleasant as long as the weather is relatively clement.

^^^^
I'll allow, of course, that I'm not a decent person.:)

Hi Laika-

I've listened to line-by-line narratives about criminality on the A-train by several women who report to me. It is unique to the A-train and their reports would knock one's socks off. These women are outstanding teammates, contributors, workers, and friends. Based on what I've learned from these dynamic, savvy, and successful women, they can expense car service to get home and I'll approve the AMEX charge every single time. This courtesy is also extended to male teammates to use as they wish. Riders of other lines don't report these problems.

~ Blue Jays ~

Hi! I've never shared that experience of the A train, personally, and that's the train I take for the majority of my commute. And I can't recall ever having heard anyone I know or work with complaining about the A train particularly. The one kind of sterotypical NYC subway horror story I've heard (a coworker being spattered with poop by a half-naked derelict) was on the IRT...the 2 train, ironically enough. I'll have to keep an ear out for A train horror stories but while the terrors of the A train may be a "known fact" to you and your coworkers, they're not to me or mine.

I've taken the subway in many cities (NY, London, Calcutta, Paris, Montreal, Toronto, Boston, Hong Kong, Santiago de Chile, and Chicago (ok it's not a subway but close enough)). I have to say that while I had good experiences on all of them (in fact my last trip to london was 2 weeks after the 7/7 bombings and people seemed to cope with the attacks and service disruption quite well) NYC's subway system was the most fun to ride and one of the most interesting (I love the tile mosaics).

New Yorkers are a very gregarious bunch and I've managed to get into interesting and fun conversations on just about any subway ride there that lasted more than 2 stops.

I'm not denying that bad things might happen on the NYC subway - but in my experience the long tunnels of the London and Paris subways are more intimidating, and the amount of muggings and pickpocketing activity in London in particular make it that I find London's subway to be one of the 'scarier' that I've ridden. Not that I would avoid taking it but I definitely am more aware of strangers and more wary on the tube than I am in NY.

BTW my first trip to NY was in 1993, just after the peak in crime rates in that city IIRC - and the subway was just fine.

It seems to me if there are a lot of people who are assaulted on the subway, perhaps they could charge a toll and hire more security officers with the money...

Ok, I don't want to be hijacking this thread any further, but l'd like to leave you all with a little food for thought. I wish the New York Times hadn't moved this article (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E14FD3D540C778EDDAF0894DE404482) to their pay money section, but perhaps some of you have access to it. Here's another (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/06/26/subway_harassment/index.html), shorter article. And finally, an article (http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2006/04/08/subway_phonecam.html) about NYC group who take pictures of their harassers and post them on the internet.

To connect this with the original topic, I personally support the idea of a congestion tax for cities like the one they have in London. However, before they institute something like that in New York City, they really need to address this personal safety issue. Perhaps some of the funds from a congestion tax could go to increased public safety measures in the subway system.

BTW, I take the subway all the time, and I can't recall the last time I ever saw a white woman being harassed by a "black person". Not saying it hasn't happened to you, but when I am commuting on the train, it is generally a bunch of people doing the same thing. Commuting.

You may not have seen it, but it definitely happens all of the time ... in the movies.

Typically a knife is brandished and devilish chuckling occurs.

In Japan, women ARE typically fondled by men in the cars as they are crammed full. They have started instituting "women's only cars (http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/221301)" to help remedy the situation.

Apparently the thread I started about summer rise in gas prices was closed in favor of a discussion of NYC. I don't live in NYC and neither do 290 million other americans. My closest good bike shop is 65 miles one way. Gas prices do affect me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=news&sid=afOlUzd30YOo

My closest good bike shop is 65 miles one way. Gas prices do affect me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=news&sid=afOlUzd30YOo

Pity the person that chooses to live in the sticks... :rolleyes: