clip on youtube

On the question of where to draw the zone border, and why not expand it to city limits (which I'd propose as a thought experiment), it makes sense to base congestion pricing on land use and land value. Drivers who don't even live in the city can consume 80 square feet of 5th Avenue for as long as they want (driving up and down) in a way that isn't even legal for non-drivers. They're squatters with engines, formerly covered up for by the relatively high cost of autos and now exposed by their cheapness.

An ideal pricing plan would have concentric zones following land value contours, charging drivers each time they enter more expensive zone and accounting for the time that they spend in its public space. It's disturbing in terms of surveillance and doesn't jibe at all with the traditional fiction of automobile=freedom, but the problems caused by autos are bigger than five decades of Chevy ads. Those disturbed by the civil liberties implications (as I certainly would be) are free to transport themselves without the extra steel--most of us are already doing just that!

The Mayor may have just blown the best ever chance for congestion pricing of road use. His Manhattan-centric version undercuts decades of building a growing grass roots understanding that equal tolls on all entries into Manhattan below 60th Street is the best hope to reduce traffic on approach routes to “free” bridges that is strangulating borough economies and the quality of neighborhood life. The claims that borough motorists will pay so that affluent Manhattanites can taxi freely around Manhattan are now fueled by the Mayor’s exemption of fees on taxis and extension of the cordon to 96th Street.

The attempt to cast off the onus of bridge tolls by charging for entering the Manhattan street grid instead of on the bridges is too transparent to mollify borough leaders and introduces costly block-by-block enforcement and surveillance systems that will eat away at transit revenues needed most in the boroughs.

The whopper, however, is relocating the northern pricing cordon to 96th Street, above which the demographics look more like the boroughs, and giving four of the nation’s richest zip codes free access to the Central Business District in taxis or even in their own limousines. The exemption of nearly 400,000 vehicle trips a day across the traditional 60th Street screenline would deprive transit of upwards of $1 billion a year—enough to pay the unfunded balance of the Second Avenue Subway, and without which borough motorists and transit riders will pay for that Upper East Side bonus too.

Rapid recognition by the Mayor that these flaws are counterproductive and would doom the essential congestion pricing element of his sustainable growth plan will be an early test of the entire plan’s viability.

Eliminating the need to move more than a half ton of steel and glass per person blows the current system away. Distributed and on-demand advantages makes it awesome!

The "bridge tolls" system wouldn't work very well for this, because there are so many streets connecting the optimal zone with the outside. It might be possible to put EZ-Pass on the bridges crossing the Gowanus Canal, the English Kills, Dutch Kills and Bronx River, but those are numerous, and there are still plenty of ways to get around them.

The alternative I can think of is a London-style camera system, but I'm uncomfortable with the civil liberties implications. Of course, you could argue that people give up some civil liberties in exchange for the right to drive, and that the tracking is possible with EZ-Pass and Metrocards (not to mention cell phones), but it's still problematic.

Cobble Hill and Boerum Hill are nightmares during rush hour. Many of these cars will disappear.

Furthermore, everyone acknowledges that congestion pricing has to be coupled with tranit improvements. If new express buses (and subways?) cut the time of getting to Manhattan by 30 minutes (while you're taking a nap or reading a book, no less) much of the demand for the park and ride will be lessened.

In any case, your point is an argument for Shoup's market-rate parking pricing.

I think that if congestion pricing becomes a reality, we're going to need to restrict neighborhood parking to residents by distributing permits.

But I'm behind congestion pricing 100%. I've also written my councilmember to voice support.

Have you all?

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=poll

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/nyregion/20speech.html?hp

"What will almost certainly be the most contentious idea, however, involves charging drivers to enter the busiest sections of Manhattan. The proposal being formulated calls for money raised from congestion pricing, which could reach hundreds of millions of dollars a year, to go into a fund for large-scale transportation investments. Those would include projects for the boroughs outside Manhattan, where drivers would be most affected by new fees that could reach $8, minus a credit for any tolls already in effect."

But after the bad start he stated the need for express buses and noted that congestion is costing NYC over 50,000 jobs a year.

By the end of his comment I came to believe that a deal might be possible- we just need to provide, say, 45 minute access to Midtown from the farthest reaches of the outer Boroughs.