Where Should We Try Congestion Pricing First?
Posted by Glenn on December 11, 2006 - 9:39pm in The Oil Drum: Local
With all the talk about congestion pricing that's going on in New York the last couple of weeks, momentum is building to do something other than continue to talk about it. And from the first reactions of the political establishment, you can break down the reaction to basically Manhattanites favoring the idea and folks from Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island opposing it.
But based on the chart above, 39% of the total number of people and 606,000 people by car entering the Central business district enter through 60th Street from either the Upper East or Upper West Sides. This includes the all the traffic that enters the CBD from Northern Manhattan, the Bronx, Westchester/Rockland Counties, Northern New Jersey GW Bridge) and Connecticut.
What if that's where we start with Congestion Pricing? What would the political landscape look like if we just started with all vehicles going over the strip line at 60th street going south in the morning and north in the afternoon / evening?
Just based on pure numbers of drivers in NYC, you might expect opposition to come from mostly from the Upper East Side, and certain sections of the more suburban northern Bronx. At the state level there might be some opposition from Westchester and Rockland Counties. And while there might be objections from New Jersey residents, it is not clear where in the political process they would have a say.
Within the city itself though, of the communities that would be most directly impacted the community that has the highest number of commute-by-car residents (Upper East Side) also has the most viable transit alternatives by subway, commuter rail or bus. And those communities bear the brunt of auto commuters that simply use their roads as thoroughfares to get to the Central Business District and therefore stand the most to gain in traffic congestion reduction.
Then if we look at the simple percentages we see that almost all of the affected areas in NYC have less than 15% commuting by car with just a few northern Bronx areas with a higher than 15%. But again, they have transit alternatives to the CBD and would greatly benefit from having reduced traffic in their area.
Politically, starting with the 60th Street strip-line makes sense, since Manhattan is desparate for traffic relief, the Bronx seems fairly ambivilant if not an advocate for Congestion Pricing and the critics in Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island would be neutralized by not having this affect them.
If successful, this congestion pricing experiment may spread to the other entrances to the CBD, but not necessarily. There may be other mechanisms to reduce traffic volume in those areas that are more politically viable, such as expanding bus rapid transit, charging higher rates for on-street parking in midtown and reducing the number of city employees that have official placards for their cars.
It's time for Manhattan and the Bronx to lead on this issue as two boroughs that are most distressed by the constant flow of polluting and noisy automobiles flowing through their densely populated areas.
As for the counties just outside of NYC, the state could perhaps work with Metro North to add more trains on the westchester side, but Rockland will always be a problem because although there are (a few) train lines there, the riders are forced to connect in Secaucus, and those trains don't run on the weekend at all. Maybe a direct connection to either Penn Station or GCT is in order?
As for the Upper East Side, well, a PR campaign there is where you come in! But seriously. I think on Streetsblog, someone said, "Well, there are so many rich people on the UES that it won't matter, because they'll just pay." Actually, I'd be curious to see the income breakdown. Do you have that? And the 2nd Ave Subway is going to ultimately play a major role in determining whether UESers take more public transportation, so even though a lot of people are wary about funding public transit with bonds, I think in this case it's the only thing that makes sense.
The original starting places of the residents driving to the CBD shows where political opposition would probably come from.
The "point of entry" map shows how much traffic is flowing through that point into the CBD. This shows which entry points have the most traffic. The 60th street line have folks coming from northern Manhattan, New Jersey, Westchester, Connecticut...etc
The income breakdown by drivers to the CBD might be difficult to find, but if anyone has that, please send it in. I suspect it's more diverse than most people think. Also some of it could easily be replaced by more frequent express buses to Wall Street area.
more than 25%. Remember that the BRT trains are almost 2x the size of the IRT trains, and consequently hold about 2x as many people.
conversely the congestion charge is £8.
(multiply by 2 to get USD equivalents).
The Congestion Charge has reduced traffic by 10-15%, but more in the off peak than the on peak.
The conclusion? Those who can afford to drive to work, still drive to work. Parking was already their biggest bill.
In economic terms, they are highly price inelastic consumers. The additional cost is offset by the fact that they can get to work faster (lower traffic).
The discouragement has been on voluntary trips, trips by servicemen and builders, trips 'passing through' the centre, shopping trips etc.
You've hit a nail on the head, I suspect.
Jane Jacobs wrote about this before she died (see 'The Coming Dark Age'). Jane Jacobs, along with Betty Friedan, Rachel Carson, Diane Arbus, Germain Greer and a few others was one of those women who changed the world, a group of women who grew up in the old world, became housewives, mothers, and got dragged willy nilly into changing the world.
New York (and Toronto) owe her a great debt.
Basically roads are traffic generative. Close a road and some of the traffic disappears.
We will shilly shally around with 'free market' solutions, which make great sense in terms of the economics I was taught.
And we will then find, that to increase the number of journeys, to get an acceptable throughput of people (and not incidentally to confront global warming) we are going to have to do something really, really radical.
Like ride bicycles.
Revenues from the Congestion Charge haven't met expectations. Traffic fell by more than expected (but not at peak hours). Costs of running the system have been higher than forecast.
Meanwhile the system is flooded with low cost users (kids under 16 are free on buses, also those over 65 etc.). But the transit system (at peak) is 100% capacity. Kiley (former head of the NY Transit, imported to run ours) told the Mayor this would happen, but our Mayor is an ex Trotskyist demagogue (think of him as a Rudi Giuliani of the Left).
Another nuance is we now have double length 'bendy buses' to replace the conductor on the old Routemaster double decker. As a result (you get on and off at any door) I would estimate at least 1/3rd of riders are not paying (you don't pay a fine often enough to make it worth paying). Maybe over half of riders on some routes.
Scandinavian societies are high homogeneity, with high compliance to laws. New York is a high heterogenity, low compliance to laws kind of place (OK it's not Lagos, but compared to most major western European cities).
Systems and social programmes that work in Scandinavia and in Singapore, don't work so well in freewheeling 'Merica.