New York has never actually been serious about enforce "don't block the box" regulations. Every year for about 3 weeks, the city cracks down hard on this, and then does absolutely nothing for the rest of the year. Traffic enforcement is simply not a priority for the city or the police. I have witnessed first hand, on several occassions, a car blatantly running a red light and almost hitting pedestrians in the cross walk (ME) and there was a police car, literally directly behind that car, and the cops did not respond. Drivers feel they can disobey traffic regulations with impunity. I will not take seriously any proposal made by the city on anything to do with traffic until they demonstrate a basic commitments to enforcing the laws they already have that would do much to improve traffic condistions.

If intersections were clear, cars would idle less and burn less gas just sitting still or crawling through the city. They could get to wear they are going and leave the city much faster, which means that there will be less time for them to be on city streets burning oil and fouling our air.

Also, it needs repeating, the proposal does nothing to improve air quality outside of the zone in Manhattan. This is a boon for the wealthy, and does not thing but harm for the areas that have the highest asthma rates in the country - poor neighborhoods in the Bronx and Uptown Manhattan. Those neighborhoods WILL become a parking lot for commuters trying to beat the congestion fare. People already do this in the Bronx and Brooklyn/Queens - driving to a subway station and taking that into the city instead of MNRR or LIRR. I used to do it when I commuted to school in the city for a year, and from the hundreds of cars a saw at the Woodlawn station, stretched back for almost a mile, plenty of other people do it too. THe congestion plan creates an even STRONGER incentive for people to use the burroughs as parking lot.

ANd don't forget, the more successful the plan is at reducing the numbers of cars driving in the zone, the faster the revenue will decline.

FWIW, I've lived in NYC for 23 years. But that's irrelevant to the problem with your claims. Moving cars more quickly -- which seems to be all you are concerned about -- just makes room for more cars -- and what's the result of that? Congestion. We have tried and tried and tried for decades in NYC to get traffic moving -- "Don't Block the Box", "Thru Streets" blah blah blah. And what do we have today? Horrible congestion.

Getting cars off the road will certinly get traffic moving faster much better than all of the efforts to improve traffic flow ever have. But getting traffic moving faster is not the only aim here! Getting cars off the road will improve air quality, the funding stream will mean significant investments in mass transit, and unclogging the streets will mean more room for pedestrians and cyclists.

How will your idea of enforcing "don't block the box" improve air quality in NYC?

Your comments keep getting caught in the spam filter, I believe, b/c your email address is too fake looking. Come up with something else like bob@aol.com, would you? It's a lot of work to fish your stuff out of there.

http://www.fightgridlocknow.gov/presscoverage/pc070615WCBS.htm

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the logic of how keeping cars/buses from crowding the interesections will reduce traffic, then you either have never even been in New York City, much less lvie their, or you are literally blind. If you are not visually impaired, I suggest you look at any intersection and watch what happens. Try riding a bus to or from work. Any bus.

I'm talking about reducing traffic.

You argue that there are people and places that would feel negative impacts from a congestion charge if there are not improvements to the transit system before the charge is implemented. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

The reason the congestion charge legislation is in such a rush is that the deadline for funding is Monday the 16th. About half of this funding will be going to improvements, including hundreds of new, high-tech, flat floor buses with full disability access. This will be great for helping elderly and disabled people access Manhattan, as some of them might not be able to climb subway stairs... not to mention able-bodied city residents. Rehabilitation and construction of new intracity MNRR and LIRR stations will allow for increased ridership on these modes. Some of these lines are not operating anywhere near capacity.

But there has to be money to do this, and the federal government is offering us $500 mln of our tax dollars (which could instead go to construction of HOV lanes in Dallas, etc.) to make these improvements. Congestion pricing won't be implemented until there are new buses and stations.

Re #29: The MNRR is also along freight railroads much of the time, so many of these neighborhoods have industrial/worker housing character to them, meaning that they're generally lower income. Many upper Westchester residents with money traditionally took horse-and-carriage or car to the train station and so a large number of the mansions are located farther away from the station. There are, of course, exceptions.

"Moreover, you would see an overnight reduction in traffic by almost half or more if the MTA would simply retrain its bus drivers to never even attempt to go through an intersection unless they can get all the way through. If you want to reduce traffic even less, you would more aggressively enforce the same traffic regulations fro blocking the box on all autombiles. Problem solved."

I truly cannot fathom your logic here. How would enforcing the law against blocking the box reduce traffic? That doesn't make any sense at all! We would still have the same number of cars on the street and the same rotten air quality as a consequence and the same sky high asthma rates. How does keeping the box clear reduce the number of cars on the road?

None of this is to say the suburban station-access problem isn't solvable -- just that it must be solved if we expect suburbanites to switch modes for the difference of an $8 (and usually far less) congestion fee.

Metro North's most underutilized stations of course are in the Bronx. Ridership there would be increased by restructuring the fares to be competitive with NYC transit.

I don't live in Manhattan, and I actually know the geography of Westchester pretty well, since I spent almost two years looking at apartments there before deciding to live someplace with a subway, and I still go back and visit often. A lot of the people in Westchester are an easy walk from a Metro-North station, and a lot more are a short bus ride away. Galvo's right (on the other thread) about how much Bee-line sucks, but one thing it does pretty well is get people to and from Metro-North stations during rush hours. You say thousands, I say hundreds, neither of us has any hard facts.

I also know another aspect of Westchester geography that you neglect to mention, Be: that property values and incomes go up as you get further from train stations. I know a lot of areas in Westchester where there are poor people, but I don't know too many that aren't walking distance from a train or bus that goes to the city.

I have to disagree with Hilary about Metro-North station parking. In addition to being ugly and hazardous, it's a major generator of car trips. I seriously doubt that it discourages people from driving all the way to the city; instead it invites people to live in transit-deprived areas. Improved pedestrian access and feeder bus service is a much better way to go.

Also, having the fee as a source of revenue is just straight from the bill. I wouldn't go to so far to say that it's unethicall. Fee-based revenue is a major part of all forms of transportation. After all, subways do buses, while funded by tax revenue, are also funded by the users. And toll roads collect revenue to maintain roads. What's wrong with collecting a road usage fee that will improve both public transit and the roads (due to their decreased use and less traffic).

I do agree with Hilary that commuter parking in the suburbs needs to be increased. Some of the more crowded stations have waiting lists that extend months or years just to get a spot. These people will have to drive some distance, but let's have them drive to the station, not to the City.

Also, when most people from Manhattan actually stop calling Westchester "Upstate New York" or can actually locate it on a map, or not think it's in Long Island, maybe then they can have an honest discussion about this issue that effects the entire region.

I would as to Jack and Angus that just because someone qualifies for "senior citizen" status someplace (where were you talking about precisely) doesn't mean that the congestion plan will have that exemption. In fact, it doesn't. You and I both agree its a good idea, but two schmucks on a blog saying something will be included in legislation doesn't make it so. Many of the promises made in the congestion plan press releases are not made in the actual legislation. Let's see these exemptions in writing.

Yes, on AVERAGE, a 60 year today is more LIKELY to be in better health than one 30 years ago. But by how much? 5%? 10%? And isn't that a meaningless point since it doesn't consider individual circumstances? And you are really overestimating the physical abilities of senior citizens. If you look around, the mjority of them do not use the subway. They take the bus. The stairs and temperature, etc are toom much of an issue for them.

August, 65 is pretty young to say people should 't be driving, I'm sure most baby boomers will take issue with that. I'd wait another 10 years before taking away there license. As Jack stated, 65 ain't what it used to be. (although, there are a lot of people of all ages that shouldn't be on the road at all is a bigger issue.)

Jack, I take issue with the plan being a source of revenue. I have an objection to generating from from the pricing of taxpayer funded, public goods. We probably won't see eye to eye hear, but I believe it is a serious violation of democratic and ethical principles. If something is worth having, its worth paying for. If the public wants a good public transport system, the public should pay for it. But don't pay for your system by taxing others, are part of your economic, geographic, and cultural community, but not political community.

August, those elderly neighbors of your can walk to what they need because it's nearby. People from Westchester can't walk to work in the city. You point make no sense. There are probably thousands of people 62 and over, non-disabled, who can't walk to the train station, who are lower or middle-class, who drive into Manhattan for work every day. And I'm willing to bet none of them have ever killed your neighbors. A few hundred? Please! They go to work, park, contribute to the economy and go home. Trucks and drunk young men kill your neighbors.

And actually, I am in agreement with you (I think). I do beleive that subways, buses, and commuter rails should be considered public goods and should not have a usage charge. There have been economic studies that have shown that if you eliminated the fare on subways and buses, the increased ridership would generate so much economic activity that you could pay for the entire public transportation system with a very small sales tax, grabbing some of the increased econmoic activity generated by the free transport. The two would be complimentary. So, if you want free public transport, I'm all for that too, and I'm willing to pay for it.

I am a NY native, who lived for a while in DC where they have residential parking permits and I must say I thought they were the greatest thing ever. I didn't have to drive around for an 30-60 mins looking for parking b/c the people parking in my neighborhood lived there and there was enough street parking for everyone. It was great and most of my friends had the same experience. In NY, we screw the people who live in the neighborhood so the people from the suburbs can get the parking spots. I have never gotten it and I guess I never will.

Elderly New Yorkers are fortunate enough to avoid this. My father took the subway or bus to work until a few weeks before he died, and lived above a supermarket. I've got a lot of elderly neighbors, and they can all walk to the shopping and services that they need.

Elderly Westchester residents who can't walk to the train, but still "need" to go to Manhattan on a regular basis? How many people are we talking about here? We should allow all the non-elderly, non-disabled wealthy people to clog the streets, kill our neighbors and pollute our air to make life a little bit easier for a few hundred elderly people who should have planned better?

I do agree that blocking the box needs to be enforced. But why not enforce that and have congestion pricing simultaneously so that the public can also benefit from the additional mass transit funding? I don't see how only enforcing traffic regulations will be enough. Yes, it will make quite an impact, but is it enough of an impact? Some of the busiest streets are far too congested and need something more profound to make a true difference. Also, are there any studies that measure the potential decrease in traffic solely by enforcing traffic regulations? We can say that traffic regulations will be enforced, maybe even hire additional traffic officers. But unless a measure that deliberately controls the amount of traffic on the streets is produced, eventually enforcement will decrease as traffic increases. The amount of vehicles entering Manhattan is too high as it is and without congestion pricing that amount will continue to increase.

The amount of funding should not decrease. In an earlier post you brought up the effect of inflation on transit fares. The same goes for congestion pricing. While I think many people here will disagree with me, I do not think there should be a large increase in the congestion price in the near future (London's went from 5 to 8 pound sterling in a short amount of time, and many State Assembly members are using that as a reason to not have congestion pricing). The cost, however, will still increase gradually over time. Also, there are a lot of people who will still drive into the zone, whether they have to or just want to. Businesses will not be deterred by the costs of it, so there is a large amount of income there. And individuals will still drive, but a large portion of them will switch to transit.

jmc, having discounted pricing at certain hours is very possible. There are a lot of highways in other parts of the country where solo drivers can pay to use the HOV lane. As traffic increases in the HOV lane, the price of doing this increases and goes down when fewer people use it. However, I don't think that low emissions vehiciles should pay less, at least not yet. I think primary approach that Bloomberg is taking is on behalf of commerce, trying to increase mobility throughout the city on all methods of transportation.

The congestion charge does have to be big enough to motivate people to change to a different transportation system, so yes, it's a "big change from nothing." Though when you add the cost of parking it's not a huge amount, unless everyone coming from westchester is parking on the street.

I think a more dynamic and adjustable system would be to toll all the bridges and then adjust the tolls to try to moderate congestion (for example, before 5 or 6 it would be cheaper). Apparently that's politically impossible though.

I also think there should be a discount for people who drive zero-emission (or perhaps partial-zero emission) vehicles that you should be able to apply for... I think that this would help clean the air in the whole city and motivate people to buy cleaner cars and trucks.

Why would people game the system to get disability permits if they're not doing it already? It would save people a ton of money in parking costs to use free disabled spaces so I can't imagine that the congestion charge would encourage it uniquely.

I don't expect everyone to be happy with congestion charging, and I can't understand driver behavior completely (for example, why do people not use EZ-Pass? there can't be that many people who are getting reimbursed at any given time and ezpass is cheaper, a lot of the cars are from in the "EZ pass zone," and you can't say that people in NJ can possibly avoid tolls regularly!)

The one thing I don't understand is the future plan WITHOUT congestion pricing and a pedestrian focus, especially if the MTA is supposedly so horrible that it can't operate a single train, any political plans are capable of being destroyed by inertia, and traffic is inexorable. How is the city supposed to grow economically if it can't add residents and use its existing (and therefore cheap) infrastructure more efficiently?

Re: residential parking permits: I don't think other cities are experimenting with them, they're just using them. They exist in Somerville, Cambridge, and Seattle and have since at least the 80s. It's not so much "privatizing" public space as reserving some space for residents, i.e. people who pay local taxes. Most of the residential permits in Seattle when i lived there had the notation "2 hour limit or permit." I think these mainly should be used to limit "parking and riding" in certain hot spots (as they are in those cities) and not as a general rule. Also, in my opinion parking spots are not really a public good as they're just private vehicle storage and I think that means that those who use it can be charged fees.

Also, if the city keeps growing, people will keep paying the charge at similar rates, and a lot of the growth will go into transit. This means more people will be able to go into Manhattan and do business, which means more general tax revenue for the city. If it doesn't, I guess we don't need to worry about increasing congestion.

PS If cars flowed like a liquid they'd speed up when going on a narrower road!