Streetsblog reports that our overlords in the New York State Assembly will be having a public hearing on congestion pricing, and it will be taking place right around the corner from the place I work. The last time they did so, I decided to show them up by riding a bicycle part way to work and comparing my trip mode to theirs here. My neophyte bike commute had some problems, but I found that I really, really had fun doing it. Enough fun that I did some research, made some adjustments, and observed how and where others locked up their bikes. Beginning a month after that first hearing, I have been biking the nine miles to and from work three or four times a week. It’s the most exercise I have gotten since college, or maybe high school, and it costs me little if any extra time out of my day. What had seemed impractical now seems to be the most practical thing I have done in years, and I wish I had done it 20 years (and 40 pounds) ago. One might say that this is the only good thing the New York State Legislature ever did for me. I’ll write more about some changes in my thinking as a result later, but for now I’ll put yet another two cents in on congestion pricing, and I’ll do it here because the “public hearing” is by invitation only and surprisingly I didn’t get an invitation.
Although I doubt the eventual outcome will be anything positive, thus far the State Legislature has done the people of New York City and State a favor (and I don’t say something like that lightly) by tying congestion pricing to the MTA Capital Plan, forcing the MTA to show what the financial condition of the infrastructure is two years early, and having a commission of professionals review the plan and consider all alternatives.
But I also believe Mayor Bloomberg has done us a favor (and I’m not in the mood to conceded that either, due to another issue I’ve written about here) by proposing congestion pricing in the first place, regardless of whether or not it is enacted. A number of “open secrets” of unearned privilege, including rampant parking placard abuse, people shifting insurance costs to the honest by registering cars out of state, and the consequences of years of shifting debts to the MTA, have received a public airing. And the victims of that unearned privilege are starting to see how little they really count compared with the small number of people working the system.
Opponents have said congestion pricing will make Anthony Weiner Mayor. It could be that its enactment would allow him to mine the votes of the disaffected. But at this point, unless either congestion pricing or a better alternative (not a red herring) is enacted (not merely suggested as an impossible dream), for both transportation finance and traffic management, Weiner and the other opponents are quite exposed. They would get the blame for the negative consequences of doing nothing. It may not affect state legislators, because they do not face democratic elections, cut it would certainly affect Weiner’s run for Mayor.
I believe the alternative the commission came up with is superior to the original Bloomberg plan for one key reason. This is supposed to be a pilot project, an initiative that could be abandoned if it doesn’t work, adjusted if it more-or-less works but could be improved, and expanded if it works well. The original proposal was complicated and expensive. The commission’s proposal, on the other hand, is a quick and dirty — just charge to enter the CBD from one of the bridges and tunnels or from 60th Street, rather than install meters on every block and try to measure every time someone moves. That can come later, if we want it to.
For those who didn’t read past posts, I agree with congestion pricing. Street space is scarce and valuable in the CBD, and some are using more than their share by occupying it with large motor vehicles. Since doing so is “free,” more people will attempt to seize that public space for themselves than there is public space available, and the result is congestion. The least the drivers can do is pay some “rent” to those who surrender their equal right to drive, in the form of the congestion fee. Doing so may convince some people that the alternatives to driving are a fair deal.
And remember, not just anyone can drive to Manhattan for free. I certainly can’t — I would have to pay an arm and a leg to park. So the people driving fall into one of two oligarchies that have, let’s say, be doing very well at everyone else’s expense — the financial oligarchy, which could afford the fee and might be better off if congestion goes down, and the political oligarchy, which distributes free parking placards to those on the inside. One of those oligarchies — the financial one — is in effect offering the rest of us something in exchange for their right to drive — the congestion fee. The other pretends to be looking out for the less well off, but in fact only looks out for itself. It is that deception that will be spun at the “public hearing” tomorrow.
Were it up to me, I would make two changes to the congestion pricing proposal as made the commission.
First, although not called bridge tolls, the congestion charge as proposed would take the place of tolls on the East River Bridges. Those bridges were originally built and maintained with tolls, but after the city curried favor in the short run by removing those tolls, it eventually stopped maintaining the bridges, because it didn’t have the money. As a result the bridges became so deteriorated that they were nearly lost, and were partially or completely shut down for years. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars were spent to repair the bridges, a job not yet done. With much of the money borrowed, residents of the City of New York, whether the drive or not, will be paying for the consequences of those free tolls indefinitely. And it is entirely likely that the cycle of deferred maintenance, deterioration, and eventual disaster will repeat. In fact, I would call it nearly certain.
The first call on a congestion pricing charge should be the ongoing maintenance of those bridges, which are important not only to drivers but also to taxis, pedestrians, cyclists, subway riders, bus riders, and deliveries. The way to accomplish this is for the City of New York to transfer the four bridges to the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority, in exchange for the TBTA assuming the debts the city ran up to repair the bridges. Not only would that assure much of the congestion charge would go to mass transit, and that the bridges would be maintained, but also that the coordination of the bridges with transit service would not be complicated by jurisdictional disputes.
The second idea is a variation on something I read in the New York Sun. As a concession to those complaining about little old ladies driving to doctor’s appointments and people traveling for business, the Sun suggested that anyone traveling to a medical facility be exempted from the charge, and everyone else get one free trip per month. The former suggestion is a mistake — it would just allow a whole additional group of people to hand out fraudulent passes, the equivalent of the now-infamous parking placards. It would be yet another much abused special deal for the “special people.” No one who works at a medical facility, or who has a relative who does, would ever pay. It is the latter idea — the once a month free trip — that intrigued me.
I propose raising the congestion charge to $10, but allowing one free trip per week. For those who just drive every day from points east of the Hudson, it would be $40 per week either way. Since the $2 charge is more than the $8 toll, New Jersey folks (and others west of the Hudson) would have to pay more to drive to Manhattan than they do now, something certain politicians seem to want. But for those with the occasional doctor appointment, business meeting, Broadway or shopping trip — or those who just can’t find a spot during alternate side of the street in Queens — the occasional drive to Manhattan would be free of the congestion charge. This could buy off a whole additional set of opponents. Moreover, five “middle class” people, each with their own five-passenger Chevrolet rather than Cadillac, could carpool, each driving their vehicle one day a week — and never pay the charge. By carpooling, of course, they would be reducing congestion.
And what if no congestion pricing proposal is adopted? In that case, particularly if there are negative consequence for the MTA Capital Plan and the quality of life, everyone should vote for a Mayor and City Council member who is willing to adopt the kind of measures I discussed here. For starters, without tolls everyone in the city is paying for the East River Bridges equally. Yet motor vehicles are taking up all the space. Perhaps it is time to rectify this inequity, and reduce the strain on the bridges (which will probably be poorly maintained), but cutting down on the number of lanes of traffic. If traffic backs up into Brooklyn and Queens, than the number of lanes for motor vehicles on streets leading to the bridges could also be reduced, allowing more room for people. The traffic could eventually be pushed all the way back where it came from.
But I think congestion pricing is a better alternative.
In the meantime, I’d like to thank the New York State Assembly for being truthful in advance about the public hearing not really being an opportunity for the public to be heard. In my experience that is true of every public hearing, but lots of people waste lots of time finding that out the hard way.