It's no secret that The New York Times hearts "congestion pricing" (not "Congestion Charging" as that sounds like a tax). As the deadline for scarfing major matching funds from the feds approaches, the Old Gray Lady is getting hysterical; for them. The editorial begins with a hosanna for The City Council and the inescapable, irrefutable benefits of the "pricing" scheme: "The City Council did right by New York City this week and voted to move forward on congestion pricing. If that brave action were enough, we would be cheering the advent of cleaner air, less gridlock and billions of dollars for mass transportation." The downside? None. And the villain preventing "pricing?" "Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, has been his usual reticent self… Mr. Silver also asked for the City Council to approve the plan first, providing cover for state legislators to follow suit. Now it is Mr. Silver’s turn. He needs to schedule congestion pricing for a floor vote this week while there is still time to meet the federal deadline." So Silver's covered his ass. What's the holdup? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of motorists/taxpayers who see "pricing" as a cash grab disguised as a P.C. boondoggle. Nah. Couldn't be.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Ok, I give up. What does “Boondoggle” mean?
http://www.google.com/search?q=boondoggle+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
“If congestion pricing is defeated enacted, New Yorkers can look forward to higher taxes, higher fares and worse transit service.”
There, I think that’s closer to the truth.
Once again, I’ll point to the recent fare hikes that were supposed to pay for new bus routes and additional trains—services that never materialised.
KatiePuckrik: Ok, I give up. What does “Boondoggle” mean?
We had a young man from Bangladesh at our home for dinner on Easter Sunday. He’s attending college with a family friend out in Iowa.
Anyway, we talked about a wide range of subjects, and when we got to talking about E85, I said: “It’s a boondoggle.” I asked if he knew what I meant, and he said no. So I explained the meaning of the term.
I’m all for congestion pricing, but I too despise the argument that the revenue will pay for anything useful. Congestion pricing is the kind of tax you want people to NOT pay, otherwise it’s not doing what it’s supposed to do (i.e. deter people from driving into Manhattan).
How about some smarter arguments for it, NYT and illustrious leaders? Like the fact that reducing congestion is easier, cheaper and smarter than building more ER’s and fire stations to reduce emergency response times?
Sigh. I love this city, but I hate it too.
This a bigger load of garbage than what the mafia hauls out of there every day.
Let’s see if we can pinpoint the ‘real’ interests involved here…
1) Government
2) Taxicabs and livery trade
3) Tourism companies and various related entites
4) PC weenies
5) Ralph Nader, Joan Claybrook, and Adolf Hitler
There, I think that covers everyone.
In all seriousness, they’re simply trying to screw an awful lot of working class people for their own financial gains. If they were even looking at the development of various hybrid technologies, they would realize that the externality effects of auto ownership are going to decline substantially over the next ten to fifteen years. ‘City’ cars are lighter, smaller, and far less polluting, and perhaps they may want to institute a program for current car owners to purchase these types of vehicles instead… with their own money of course.
I’m surprised that the major corporate interests within New York aren’t doing anything about this. The longer employee commutes are going to result in lower productivity, lower take home pay, and, in the long run, fewer companies will choose to work in NYC. That should suit New Jersey, Long Island and the rest of the tri-state area just fine.
It looks like overall, Bloomberg wants to make NYC have the politics of San Francisco (with a fake corporate twist), the cost of living of Paris, and the taxes of London. I’m sure that this formula will suit his ilk just fine.
@ Steven Lang:
Do you really think Adolph Hitler has an interest in the NYC congestion tax? That sounds a tad hyperbolic to me. I think you may have undercut your entire argument by tossing in the deceased (or so they say, right?)leader of Nazi Germany. Kind of makes your opinion less credible.
I have no real opinion on whether New York City should enact a congestion charge (except that it once again reminds me of why I’m glad that I don’t live there).
But the congestion charge, if enacted, is not going to prevent high mass transit fares or improve service. Those factors are rooted in the current method of paying for mass transit, as well as how mass transit is viewed by the public, politicians and unions. Plus, as brownie noted, if it really works, the number of people driving into the city will decline, so it won’t raise all that much money (and the money it raises each year should decline, as the number of people driving into the city declines).
If the good mayor and the Gray Lady had simply said, “The city needs a congestion charge to reduce traffic and just make Manhattan more livable,” they would be on more solid ground. They get into trouble when they tout it as a way to improve mass transit.
Congestion pricing is just another name for “Toll Roads”.
It’s a joke son.
And yes, Adolf is still alive.
I think it’s a great idea and probably will help to reduce congestion. I had a car when I lived there, but like most people I never drove it work because–ta da!– it’s too congested downtown. Most people who live out of the city take the train in, so I don’t see much of an impact on most commuters. And it’s generally not “working class” people who are bringing their cars into Manhattan, anyway.
Sure it’s a joke, but it’s also a third-rate means of linking whatever you’re arguing against with the father of modern genocide. Not all that funny, IMO.
Hitler would approve of the congestion charge as it would increase his power over the people. More surveillance, money for friends in industry and moving the serfs off the roadways… it’s a valid comparison.
It’s a minor point, but this is actually a NY Times editorial. Op-ed pieces are written by people not associated with the newspaper. A NY Times op-ed carries less weight than a NY Times editorial, which reflects the views and opinions of the Gray Lady directly.
“They get into trouble when they tout it as a way to improve mass transit.”
Once again, the entire point is to IMPROVE BUS SERVICE. So, yes, it will “improve mass transit” just as it has in London. Even if not a dollar of the money raised goes into running more buses or more trains – the existing buses will run BETTER.
M1EK: Once again, the entire point is to IMPROVE BUS SERVICE. So, yes, it will “improve mass transit” just as it has in London.
Re-read the quote from the The New York Times at the heading of this blog entry:
“If congestion pricing is defeated, New Yorkers can look forward to higher taxes, higher fares and worse transit service.”
The advocates for the congestion charge said this, I didn’t. THEY need to show how it will do these wonderful things (or prevent the bad ones from happening), which go far beyond saying that it will make the buses run better.
Until the politicians, unions and public view mass transit differently, the congestion charge will do nothing to improve service or moderate fare increase. Politicians view mass transit as a way to buy votes from the public by keeping fares artificially low, while buying votes from unions by agreeing to generous contracts; unions view it as a way to build numbers by increasing employment; and the public views it as some sort of right, much like $1-a-gallon for unleaded. The congestion charge isn’t going to change this.
M1EK: Even if not a dollar of the money raised goes into running more buses or more trains – the existing buses will run BETTER.
The main way it will improve bus service is by lessening congestion…which will result in lower revenues over time. To keep revenues up, traffic must remain fairly constant (the more cars coming into Manhattan means more revenue), which won’t do much to make bus service more convenient.
And if you really believe that the projected revenue from this charge hasn’t already been spent about two times over by all of the interested parties, and that the real goal here is to reduce traffic (which will ultimately reduce the revenue from this charge) and thus make the buses run better…I wouldn’t say that too loudly in the company of those of us who work in government and have experience with this sort of thing.
Staying on topic…
I have absolutely no respect for civil servants who dictate how people should live by instituting taxes, tariffs, and zoning ordinances that protect the major powers while screwing virtually everyone else.
This plan is just another naked example of it. It’s amazing to me how certain unenlightened souls think that instituting penalties and punishments is far preferable to alternatives.
1) How about offering reduced lower tolls and to those who drive subcompacts or hybrids with a friend or two in tow? Nahhh…. no money in that.
2) Perhaps owners of scooters or 250cc motorcycles can get certain fees waived and special parking areas? You can have certain areas of Manhattan and events that would be well suited to this. Would it help? Yep. Does NYC want it? Nope.
There is an amazing number of additional opportunities that these folks aren’t pushing at the moment because there is simply no money in it. Park N’ Ride’s at some of the vacant and underutilized commercial space that’s near the city, converting restaurant waste to biodiesel and encouraging B20 pumps, developing an interactive database that lets commuters seek rideshares, even encouraging NYC businesses to use telecommuting whenever practicable. These are just four among dozens of programs that can substantially reduce congestion and make NYC a far more livable place. But they don’t work if you try to position yourself as an intimidating, tax-happy behemoth. Just ask the City of Atlanta and their relations with the surrounding counties.
The NYC government is going to require a lot more than taxes, ordinances, and a ‘screw them’ attitude if they want to reduce congestion over the long run. It can be done, but the focus and approach has to change. If you want to look at a program to reduce congestion that does work, take a look at what Emory University and the CDC are doing. It will make the current Bloomberg plan look like the proverbial piece of trash that it is.
A lot people say “there’s no better plan”. Well there is. Steven just named a few. And I thought of this… we could make all taxis stay in their bases like car services. Convert all those no-longer used fire boxes on every corner to taxi-hailing boxes, which would then dispatch the cab to your location. Voila, No more cabs cruising for customers. Way less congestion and pollution (noise as well as air).
kgriff1118:
It’s a minor point, but this is actually a NY Times editorial. Op-ed pieces are written by people not associated with the newspaper. A NY Times op-ed carries less weight than a NY Times editorial, which reflects the views and opinions of the Gray Lady directly.
No such thing as a minor point hereabouts. Text amended, from “Op Ed” to “editorial.” Thanks for the heads-up.
It’s pretty straightforward how congestion charges improve bus service. Get the cars off the road and the buses can move easier.
Letting everyone try to squeeze onto busy roads is pretty much the definition of a Tragedy Of The Commons. Congestion pricing lets people who are willing to pay the most for the finite resource use it.
Of course, we also need to blow open the taxicab junta. Get more taxis out there and lower the prices.
nonce: It’s pretty straightforward how congestion charges improve bus service. Get the cars off the road and the buses can move easier.
That will only work if fewer cars come into the city, which will mean lower revenues (fewer drivers will pay the charge).
The main way it will improve bus service is by lessening congestion…which will result in lower revenues over time. To keep revenues up, traffic must remain fairly constant, which won’t do much to make bus service more convenient.
I’m certain that the projected revenue from this charge has already been spent by all of the interested parties. The parties, therefore, do not want a dramatic reduction in traffic, as this will ultimately reduce the revenue from this charge, no matter what they say for public consumption.
The main way it will improve bus service is by lessening congestion…which will result in lower revenues over time.
Sure, they’ll get less revenue from the congestion charges if less people come in.
You’re assuming facts not in evidence: that the congestion charge will be set up in such a way as to not have any effect.
As brownie said near the top of the thread, congestion charging shouldn’t be done to funnel revenue to public transportation. It should just be done to, well, reduce congestion.
Get more taxis out there and lower the prices.
More taxis? That’s absolutely the last thing that Manhattan needs. Taxis are a menace. Especially when one cuts across five lanes to respond to a hail and screw the consequences.
Personally, I hate “magic bullet” thinking. There are no simple solutions to complex problems as much as we might wish for them. As others have said, being honest about reducing congestion will require a multi-pronged approach that will probably evolve over time and will take original thought and (here’s the most important part) some respect for the idea that we’re citizens and not revenue sources.
@dolo:
Hitler would approve of the congestion charge as it would increase his power over the people. More surveillance, money for friends in industry and moving the serfs off the roadways… it’s a valid comparison.
That’s a fascinating argument. Too bad Hitler never had state assembly member Sheldon Silver to throw a wrench in the works and keep the dastardly Mayor of Germany from doling out money to his friends in the tollbooth manufacturing industry.
nonce: You’re assuming facts not in evidence: that the congestion charge will be set up in such a way as to not have any effect.
I didn’t make the first assumption in this discussion, and that is not what I am assuming. I am saying that if it DOES have an effect, it will not ultimately raise as much money for mass transit as its advocates claim it will.
The first assumption was that it would improve bus service, primarily by lessening congestion. You posted this:
It’s pretty straightforward how congestion charges improve bus service. Get the cars off the road and the buses can move easier.
But if enough cars are removed from the streets of Manhattan, that also means less revenue from the charge. Which wouldn’t be a problem, except for what comes next:
nonce: As brownie said near the top of the thread, congestion charging shouldn’t be done to funnel revenue to public transportation. It should just be done to, well, reduce congestion.
Someone needs to tell this to The New York Times, and, one assumes, the good mayor himself. This is straight from the editorial in the Gray Lady:
“The City Council did right by New York City this week and voted to move forward on congestion pricing. If that brave action were enough, we would be cheering the advent of cleaner air, less gridlock and billions of dollars for mass transportation.” (emphasis added)
Whether it should or shouldn’t be structured to funnel money to mass transit is irrelevant, given that its chief proponents appear to hold the view that it will do just that. I seriously doubt that an increase in ridership because of the congestion charge will result in “billions for mass transportation” (from the fares paid by new riders).
The bottom line is that we are talking about this proposal, as it currently exists, which, at least to its proponents, is designed to not only reduce congestion, but also raise new funds for mass transit.
This reminds me of the debate over cigarette taxes in Pennsylvania…the revenue generated by the tax was supposed to discourage smoking and also pay for various health programs. Only problem was that as smoking DID decline, revenues from the tax fell, and the costs of the programs supported by the tax didn’t decline.
NYT “If congestion pricing is defeated, New Yorkers can look forward to higher taxes, higher fares and worse transit service.”
Me: “If congestion pricing is enacted, New Yorkers can look forward to higher taxes, higher fares and worse transit service.”
It just doesn’t make any difference
It’s entirely appropriate to mention Hitler in connection with congestion pricing. If his, er, administration had not been interrupted, a top priority of the Third Reich would have been clearing Berlin streets of all the clutter of building debris and Russian tanks. Hitler’s buddy, Mussolini, is remembered for his interest in promoting mass transit by getting trains to run on time.
Another anecdote: years ago the state employees at the Capitol complex complained so loudly about the lack of parking spaces the Governor had a mass meeting to explore solutions to the problem. I pointed out the state’s parking lots had hash marks painted a foot or two farther apart than the width of spaces in shopping center lots. For the cost of a few buckets of paint, the state could create hundreds more spaces. That never happened; there must have been too many drivers of RVs and big trucks among the decision makers.
What a load of junk.
Congestion pricing is being pushed by the big real estate interests in NYC, and by the Feds. The Feds are dangling a lot of money in front of the City, but no one has asked why. I live near NYC, and this is clearly a Commuter Tax. There will be no lessening of traffic. The Second Avenue Subway still won’t be built. The dream of Tolls (NYC’s dream) on the East River Bridges will come to pass.
The NY Times is fully behind Congestion Pricing. Every article in any section of the paper reads like Pravda for Congestion Pricing. No “people” want it save a shrill bunch of bicyclists whose arguements are silly outside of NYC.
This is a massive screwing of the middle class, plain and simple.
S Lang,
Just to back up a point you made. They did make special parking spaces for skooters in Calgary, and more people started using them on nice days. So, it actually could help, but I am with you, this is about power and revenue.
It appears that His Supreme and Most Exalted Lordship, King Corzine I is actually good for something.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/120711468377830.xml&coll=1
He’s angry over the suggestion that the only way to avoid additonal charges added to the tolls for the Lincoln and Holland tunnels ($3 during peak hours, $4 during non-peak hours) is for the State of New Jersey and the Port Authority of NY & NJ to provide $1 billion to the city to fund transportation projects for the city. So angry, in fact, that he’s threatened to sue the State of New York should the plan be approved by Albany.
It’s unclear whether he’s acually fighting for his subjects or if he’s dismayed over the fact that New Jersey doesn’t get a slice of the revenue pie.