In championing residential permits, might we be exchanging an existing evil(govt permits) with a different problem? It seems questionable that anyone has more right to store property on public space than anyone else. More fair would be curbside parking priced the same for everyone. (A political non-starter to be sure.)

Once residential permits are granted it will further validates the deeply held (by motorists) belief that residents have "ownership" of the public street space. It's axiomatic in politics that getting rid of an entitlement is almost impossible. Wouldn't residential permits just be a new form of entitlement?

Lastly, the widespread abuse of govt placards here, suggests that, in the absence of an efficient and clean bureaucracy, resident permits (likely displayed as windshield stickers)would very likely be forged, or fraudulently procured.

If permit parking zones are created, it's imperative that at the onset some fair portion of the total spots are metered.

They stumped against congestion pricing on the first go round, with a tone that implied that central London would be depopulated faster than if the Thames rose two feet.

Yet this week, NY commercial rent numbers led to several stories pointing out the West End rents are four times more than midtown class A space.

There isn't a strict corollary there, beyond the fact that 19c. rules from various royals created a congestion pricing schema for development, and it appears to have to led to long term benefits to real estate, minimized damage to light and air (by restricting building) and created one of the most sought after business districts in the world.

Without sounding too Malthusian -- or Mosesian -- it should be noted that some decisions cannot be fairly evaluated by polling self-interest. There is no rational argument against congestion pricing.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the city, without any action by the state, could substantially reduce congestion through parking reform:

1. Enforcing the parking laws against placard holders, and restricting the number of placards, is the number #1 item on the parking reform agenda, given the finding that such a significant portion of daily auto commuters into the Manhattan CBD are public employees. No matter how strong the opposition of public employees (and their unions) to such measures, I would expect very little sympathy from the public and the Mayor has the clout in this, his final term, to do it. Given the city's fiscal surplus, there should be money available to pay some kind of one-time cash-out to public employees to make the reform more palatable.

2. DOT continues to install muni-meters throughout the city, not just in business districts but also along the commercial strips in residential neighborhoods, including on 2d Ave in Murray Hill and 72nd Street on the UWS. Once the muni-meters are installed, it costs almost nothing to raise rates gradually/experimentally until they are at the level necessary to ensure reasonable turnover and end the current subsidy vis-à-vis private lots.

3. In the midtown business district, DOT generally has converted all curbside parking to commercial-only at the same time it has installed muni-meters. There weren't that many non-commercial spaces taken away in this process, but I don't think there was much of an outcry. If the city converted the curbside parking on congested commercial corridors such 86th Street to commercial only, the commercial vehicles would have a place to park, the rest of the traffic (in particular, buses) would flow more smoothly, and I doubt there would be much of an outcry from non-commercial parkers.

4. Ultimately, the side streets have to be brought into the reform process as well. This can be done through a residential permitting system, or expansion of muni-meters (on side streets, the duration of muni-meters parking can be adjusted to a four or even a six hour cycle). The bottom line is no one, not even a NYC resident, has an absolute right to a free parking space, but it makes even less sense to offer this rare commodity to casual visitors to the city.

Eliminating free parking among placard holders, on commercial corridors and ultimately on side streets will reduce congestion by reducing the number of people circling for parking spaces--which presumably will be more plentiful once they are market priced--and by reducing the number of people who drive into Manhattan in the first place. Of all the congestion pricing measures, it is the most feasible, technologically and politically, because it merely involves systematic implementation of the kinds of changes that the city has already been making for a long period of time. Let's do it!

I'd just like to draw your attention to the congestion pricing discussion on the Daily News' blog:

http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2007/01/gridlock.php

And I quote:
"I suspect that the majority of people who support congestion pricing are the elitist Manhattanites who get stuck in their cabs and black cars on the way home. Too bad, use the subway."

"If you're worried about pollution then move out of NYC"

I don't live in Manhattan, I don't make a lot of money, I took the subway to work today, and I support congestion pricing. Hm.

No more 007 in 2007 for me. At least the ones she was in.

Cities in Europe and other parliamentary democracies have their own political center of gravity and are therefor empowered in ways that American cities simply are castrated.

Also, in NYC, to show you how far this is off of Bloomberg"s program, there are term limitations. He is not even running again and he cant get behind even one good policy that sails against the political wind. What does he do? Cut property taxes. In the height of a real estate boom, long term, he cuts real estate taxes. Fucking genius. How fast will prices go up now.

Our study, "The Hours," is at http://www.bridgetolls.org/thehours/thehours.htm

Perhaps one of our advocates can get a dialogue going w/ Maurice Carroll at Quinnipiac over their framing.

The Quinnipiac poll introduced the issue this way: "How much have you read about congestion pricing, a plan adopted by some major cities to reduce traffic by charging a fee to drive into congested areas" and "Some have suggested using congestion pricing to help relieve traffic in Manhattan during rush hours. In general, do you support or oppose charging vehicle owners a fee to drive below 60th St. in Manhattan during rush hours."

Quinnipiac also screened its respondents to a sample of registered voters, while ours was NYC residents. Apparently the Quinnipiac pricing questions also followed a section of questions regarding the Bell shooting in Queens.

Regardless of diverging poll results, the fact is that making people pay for something that is now free will never be a populist issue where public support will be louder than those who assume the mantle of opposition. It is something a strong leader will implement or not. Bloomberg obviously has the leadership style that could do it (and the political capital, as Quinnipiac points out) -- the question is whether he is sufficiently interested to put a lot of weight behind it and develop a strategy that can offer enough benefits to the boroughs to blunt their resistance. In any case, the clock is going to run out on his term of office unless he gets going almost immediately.

As a Manhattan resident and taxpayer I should have a greater right to park in Manhattan than those who live elsewhere. Charge me $250 a year (or pick any number) and let me have the free curbside spots. Those driving in could either park at a meter or in a garage.

This additional cost would be a disincentive to driving into Manhattan. Furthermore, the number of tax and insurance cheats who live in Manhattan but register their cars (and likely themselves) would be denied a permit. Perhaps this might leader to higher tax revenues if people changed residency.

For those in the outer boroughs who will complain we need simply point out that Manhattan residents already subsidize their subways and buses through the single fare policy of the MTA.

Ideally this would be coupled with a change in the distribution of parking passes to the hordes of city workers. Even without that, however, let's take this first step before introducing congestion pricing.

Judging from the responses in these two other cities we may never get more than 50% support for congestion pricing until the scheme is enacted. Sadly, that doesn't leave me very optimistic- especially considering that I thought a term-limited Bloomberg might be our best shot at implementing it.

"But as Mr Livingstone prepares to campaign for a third term next year, he may be losing his touch. This month 33% fare rises on London's buses and tubes were announced by Transport for London (TFL), a body controlled by Mr Livingstone, making them the most expensive capital-city fares in the world. The money is to pay interest on the bonds sold by TFL to finance what some consider to be a reckless expansion of bus services.

"Next month Mr Livingstone will more than double the congestion-charge zone by extending it westwards. He has pushed this through in the face of local opposition and the warnings of his advisers that the revenues raised by the extension will not cover the costs of running it. There is also confusion about what it's for. Congestion is a problem on only 5% of the new zone's roads. So cutting environmental pollution has become a major objective of the scheme, with charges based on engine size due to be introduced in 2009—which raises the question of why poorer, more polluted east London is not to be similarly blessed.

"There is disillusion too about increasing journey times in the original zone even though the charge was raised to £8 ($15.50). The reason is that Mr Livingstone has grabbed road space for pedestrians by paving over Trafalgar Square, artificially restricting road widths and re-sequencing traffic lights across the capital. Even the mayor's buses travel at little more than walking speed."