Think about it this way: roads (when used for automobiles) and transit are just two types of the same good i.e. transportation. Road pricing does not shift funds from one service to a completely different one. Instead it provides for a more efficient allocation of transportation resources.

That is the core of the political problem, the decongestion costs are generalized the decongestion benefits are localized.

I agree with you that the perceived benefits are localized, but that perception is erroneous, and that’s one of the biggest obstacles we’ve been fighting. The pricing zone is a destination, and in fact most of the people who drive into it come from further out. That means that the transit-rich neighborhoods in between, like my own Woodside, can expect to see a reduction in through traffic.

That’s a benefit, and it’s pretty widely spread. Unfortunately, congestion pricing proponents have had difficulty getting that point across, as can be seen by the people claiming that pricing won’t reduce pollution in the Bronx. Where do they think all those cars on the Bruckner are going?

What happened was a major revenue stream was taken away from the parks department and given to mass transit. Mass transit deserved funding, but the parks didn’t deserve to be robbed. I don’t think any highway projects were ever sacrificed for mass transit.

I’m not sure this is fatal, though, (or is it?) since the congestion fee/tax is much more directly linked to a specific service – use of CBD roads – than say, a sales, income or property tax is related to any specific service. That the revenues for the fee only contribute to providing for the service provided in an indirect way still doesn’t make congestion pricing a tax. In any case, this seems right to me.

Can anyone think of some kind of analogous fee – charge by a government for a specific service at a flat rate, but whose revenues do not (directly) provide for that service? I’m sure there must be something…

Sorry if I seem like I’m being excessively nit-picky here but I think this is an important issue in how we think about congestion pricing. (Note how all its opponents insist on calling it a ‘tax,’ while most of its supporters don’t). A ‘fee’ gives the impression that something, some service or scarce resource is being purchased (in this case, access to crowded city streets), while a ‘tax’ suggests that the government is simply trying to raise money without providing anything directly in return for that money. (The word ‘directly’ of course bears emphasis there).

Most people reading this will agree that people need to start thinking of streets and access to them as a scarce commodity, not something that is abundant and that we have a natural right to. If we think of them as of the former, then congestion pricing is a ‘fee’, if we think of them as the latter, then congestion pricing is a ‘tax’.

And we can also get those evil Iranian diplomats whom Mr. Bienstock is so worried about to pay up.

WE pay a tax every time we’re awakened in the night by a honking horn or car alarm.

WE pay a tax when we breathe air heavy with pollutants from stalled traffic.

WE pay a tax when our buildings burn because the Fire Department was stuck in traffic.

WE pay a tax as people die in ambulances that need 20 minutes to get to a hospital 10 blocks away.

WE pay a tax when our friends, family and neighbors are killed in the streets in what are Orwellianly called “accidents”

Or maybe the word “tax” is too strong.

Lets just call it a “fee”

Is congestion pricing indeed a tax or rather a usage fee? While it might seem that any money paid to a government agency is a tax, there are actually numerous counterexamples. When I apply for a passport and pay a $50 fee, most people would not call this a tax. Nor would most people think of the $6 dollar toll to cross the GW Bridge (if that’s inded what it is now) as a tax. Finally, the $2 (or really, $1.67 when you figure in the standard discount) fare that I pay to the MTA for use of the subway is by almost no accouts a tax. These are all fees of various sorts.

What makes them a fee and not a tax? I’m not entirely sure and I look forward to your suggestions. My intimation would be that it has something to do with their being charged at a flat rate (i.e. not only non-graduated, but also set in constant dollar amounts) for a very concrete service.

I would argue we should think about congestion pricing similarly: a usage fee paid to the government for the use of congested roads.

This is more than a semantic question as you will see here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007/news/regionalnews/diplos_take_exit_from_traffic_fee_regionalnews_ginger_adams_otis.htm

The State Department is insisting diplomats be allowed free access to the city’s roads since international law prohibits levying taxes on diplomats (similarly, the article states the State Department has accrued an unpaid bill of $3 million in London). I should think the State Department is wrong in both the legal interpretation and their sense of what ‘diplomacy’ is. The formers hinges entirely on how we delineate taxes from fees; the second, alas, will change only when we get rid of the current adminstration (if then).

Finally, I might add that in Stockholm, congestion pricing is in fact called a congestion tax, not a congestion fee (‘trangselskatt’, not a ‘trangselavgift’; I’m not sure if the State Department has been paying there or not).

Is congestion pricing indeed a tax or rather a usage fee? While it might seem that any money paid to a government agency is a tax, there are actually numerous counterexamples. When I apply for a passport and pay a $50 fee, most people would not call this a tax. Nor would most people think of the $6 dollar fee to cross the GW Bridge (if that’s inded what it is now) as a tax. Finally, the $2 (or really, $1.67 when you figure in the standard discount) that I pay to the MTA for use of the subway is by almost no accouts a tax. These are all fees of various sorts.

What makes them a fee and not a tax? I’m not entirely sure and I look forward to your suggestions. My intimation would be that it has something to do with their being charged at a flat rate (i.e. not only non-graduated, but also set in constant dollar amounts) for a very concrete service.

I would argue we should think about congestion pricing similarly: a usage fee paid to the government for the use of congested roads.

This is more than a semantic question as you will see here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007/news/regionalnews/diplos_take_exit_from_traffic_fee_regionalnews_ginger_adams_otis.htm

The State Department is insisting diplomats be allowed free access to the city’s roads since international law prohibits levying taxes on diplomats (similarly, the article states the State Department has accrued an unpaid bill of $3 million in London). I should think the State Department is wrong in both the legal interpretation and their sense of what ‘diplomacy’ is. The formers hinges entirely on how we delineate taxes from fees; the second, alas, will change only when we get rid of the current adminstration (if then).

Finally, I might add that in Stockholm, congestion pricing is in fact called a congestion tax, not a congestion fee (‘trangselskatt’, not a ‘trangselavgift’; I’m not sure if the State Department has been paying there or not).

The most likely scenario is that Silver will extract his price and make his peace, so there will be no reciminations over appointments to the Commission. But if not, I don’t think Silver’s lust for revenge when re-approval time rolls around (assuming CP is approved in the first place) is going to be sated one whit by the appointment of seemingly open-minded “neutral” experts to the Commission by CP proponents Bloomberg, Quinn, and Spitzer. He will be out for blood. But even so, he won’t be able to criticize the CP proponents’ appointments, because his will be vulnerable to the same criticism. I doubt he will be able to come up with anyone with the credibility of Wylde, however much she has made up her mind. Who will Silver appoint? McCaffrey?