Originally Posted by
Steve B.
NYC is ramping up to enact congestion pricing, which essentially does the same thing of greatly reducing private car traffic in the central core of Manhattan. This is something that is done in countless major metropolitan areas around the world and works well, but of course being NY is being fought tooth and nail here. I think NY will be the first city in the US to do this, if it goes through.
OK I looked that up. I'm pro-bike-commuting and anti-car. But here's the problem with all that:
1) Root Cause: At one time, most of the people that worked in NYC, LIVED in NYC. Now the population of the city triples every work day. Never implement a short-term solution without addressing the long-term solution, otherwise, the short-term solution becomes the permanent solution. Make plans, NOW, for increasing housing in NYC. First, take a 100% poll of all workers in the city, and ask, if you COULD afford to live in the city, WOULD you live in the city? No? Tell me why. Determine there will be big demand for fairly priced housing in the city? Good. Start with a moratorium on building for business, as there is already an imbalance between business residency and worker residency. When a LOT more people live in the city, see how much car congestion in the downtown drops.
2) I agree with reducing congestion. This often involves taxes. But let's say, I could clap my hands together in a kumbaya moment and get everyone to reduce congestion, be it carpooling, biking, whatever, would that satisfy the NYC powers that be? NO. Because they also want the tax money to supposedly improve transit. And that is *contradictory* to the intended goals of reducing congestion. Which, it would do, if people actually have a choice, if there is elasticity in choice of transportation. Cigarette and alcohol taxes do reduce consumption. Gasoline taxes don't, not for people who have no choice but to drive, can't afford a high MPG car, and only drive when they need to. Same for congestion pricing for people that have no alternatives. Provide those alternatives, that poor and middle-income people can afford.
3) Flat taxes like this one, disproportionately affect those who have no alternative to transport, and who are usually poor. EDIT: It's worse than a flat tax, it's a REGRESSIVE tax. $15 additional on top of bridge/tunnel fees is a ton of money for the working poor. $15 doesn't buy lunch for the wealthy who commute into the city. So those wealthy should be charged proportionately. Earn 100x a low wage worker, pay 100x the congestion tax. (And by the way, this is how traffic fines work in northern Europe, some high flyers in supercars have been charged astonishingly high ticket fees.) Oh, but that would offend the powerful wealthy, who pay campaign contributions, and play golf with city leaders. Also, see how many wealthy suddenly hire helicopters and pilots, and soon you'll have congestion and accidents there, so you need to cover all bases there.
4) Establish infrastructure for alternate transport. All business to have facilities for bicyclists, from bringing bikes inside to changing rooms. Make the buses and subways cheap enough for low-income workers to ride into and out of the central business district.
5) Be careful for what you wish for; High tax at night, and people won't come to town for a nice dinner and a show. All other transport needs to be safe at night.
6) Now, understanding the above, implement your congestion pricing, on a fair basis. But increasing housing in the city will do far, FAR more in reducing congestion.