What would happen if we dropped pricing as a mechanism to reduce VMT, and simply used congestion itself? We would allocate a lane of every major thoroughfare in the city for transit and bicycles, improving those modes at the least cost.

Hilary, if congestion pricing is the “London model,” then what you’re describing here is, esentially, the “Paris model.” Convert parking and travel lanes into exclusive bus- and bike-only lanes. Turns streets into pedestrian spaces. Convert the riverfront highway into a summertime beach…

The problem is: How to pay for it. The London model offers a great solution.

The City and DOT have all sorts of ability to deal with lanes. Many of the wider streets in Queens have been “narrowed” by pavement markings to make those streets safer.

No embarassment at all. That, in fact, is the current situation. I wrote about that on Room 8 last year here http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/congestion_you_can_fee_me_now_or_fine_me_later.html.

It isn’t my favorite suggestion, but as part of the blowback if CP is not implemented, I’ll be in favor! In fact, the more I think about it, the more I come to be in favor in any event.

The basic argument is, if those who want to drive anywhere anytime for free make us live with the consequence of congestion, and we will have congestion no matter what, we can at least take back some of the public space for other things and be no worse off.

What do you think of Quinn’s ferry network idea? Do you think it will be popular with your neighbors?

I will ad Hilary’s point about dedicated lanes is being tried in lower Manhattan; I noticed it on Broadway near City Hall. Maybe the NYCDOT A/C Steve Weber can advise how that is working out in terms of adherence. Maybe streets have no parking during a.m. and/ or p.m. peak. In Queens the enforcement could be better; even parking illegally in bus stops can slow buses.
The locations people complained of when I was a council aide in the 80s and 90s still come up.
When the state added a lane to the LIE, some of us suggested a dedicated bus lane as a prelude to a light rail line.

For example, Eastern Queens was set to have some trial BRT implemented in an area that everyone complains is under served (and rightly so). And what happened? It was squashed by residents and pols concerned that a lane of parking would be lost to make the BRT bus lanes. And now we can’t pass congestion pricing b/c these same people don’t have public transit options. Folks like Lancman and the QCC can call for more buses as much as they want, but until they are willing to make dedicated bus lanes, which you can’t do without taking away either parking or a regular car lane, than buses will never be efficient enough for long trips.

I envision that the short-term hyper-congestion would spread out radially. I’m afraid that its new level would be intolerable for people like Angus who live on those radii, and that the transit system would continue to be plagued by underfunding.

I understand that this does not get us the ongoing revenue for transit improvements. But does it get us to the same pollution-reduction goals?

Because we have been down this “road.” Better is relative, and we have better transit now that at various times in the past; yet congestion is at its worst. If we add more bus routes (on congested roads), firstly I think that’s not going to change the minds of a family so irrationally hopped up on autos that they have four in America’s most transit-rich city. I’m surprised you’d suggest otherwise. More/better transportation will shift some virtuous or economically conscious people, but without pricing it only opens up more road space for other suburban aspirationalists to buy a lot as far from transportation as possible, build a fat house on it, and complain bitterly (and disingenuously) that no transportation has since been built to their front doors. This thinking, and this behavior, is childish and undeserving of our great city.

I can only be pleased how the QCC revenue proposal got embraced by the coalition. Look through the keepnycfree.com website for the evolution of its inclusion in the coalition’s statements.

I only became president 4 months ago tonight; my predecessor had his emphases; I have mine; people who follow my work in and out of government know that tax reform and equity are important themes.

Every good idea has it time and this is the season for the revenue sharing commuter tax for transit. As an “old” tax, albeit packaged much better, it does not run afoul of the governor’s no new taxes statement; the congestion tax does. My friend John Liu concedes as much (that congestion pricing involves tax).

Frankly, StreetsBlogs’ coverage — the attention — only helps the cause. People who might not otherwise see it, learn about and may look more closely at it.

It will likely be a featured item in the Queens Civic Congress testimony on the budget at the hearing next Tuesday at borough hall.

The think too many seem not to understand is how the pricing does nothing to influence the more well to do or those able to expense the tax (and parking where applicable). The City’s land use plans involve a great deal of luxury development that also introduces luxury vehicles; that’s what riles me about many congestion taxers. Many support an inefficient tax that marginally affects driving habits but substantially impacts those drivers at the lower income levels (even if you think those incomes are high which they are not).
Many less well to do drivers might just drop the car altogether if the city had better mass transit options; read my testimony at the Queens hearing. Yesterday afternoon, I discussed the need to improve bus transportation in Queens with my friend Ed Figueroa. Though we differ on congestion pricing we both agree on the need to strategically review bus operations in Queens; I wrote on that almost five year ago (Bus travel in Queens poses ultimate challenge). If things do not happen via the government route, watch for a labor community summit to push this imperative.

This is where the congestion tax really fails: not enough (if any net revenue) and no program to build the transit capacity to induce (my friend Rory’s carrot) folks to eschew car ownership. If you need a car because the community living requires it, why not use it to go to work if you can; if you have access to better transportation, you just may save the dollars; I know first hand car non-ownership would be for my standard of living if I could pass on it; I know how making our cars available to our children (unlike my needing to own a car from my senior year at Martin Van Buren H.S.), they save big bucks. I contrast this to one of my neighbors where there are at least four cars in the household; I am sure that family would opt for less vehicles if the transit options existed; they just do not. My brilliant son often raises different transportation options that he does not understand fail to get the light of day (and I would support every recommendation he made).

I can remember when the chair of the Finance Committee would not even consider the commuter tax and I still remember the day he embraced it despite a staff member refusing to include it.

If Senator Joe Bruno can support the congestion tax at Mayor Bloomberg’s behest and which could be used to lose him the two seats he needs to keep his majority, what suggests that Bruno would not embrace the Queens Civic Congress proposal if our Mayor embraced it.

Six years ago the Mayor called for the commuter tax but coupled it with a lower city PIT (city and non-city residents would pay the same rate) so it became DOA (dead on announcement). Think about how this version which shares the wealth could gain traction if the Mayor voiced support. The bottom line is the MTA needs the funding and this reform provides the greatest stream of revenue.

Why not come together on the QCC revenue reform and just see if better service reduces car use.

“Wrong. Any congestion relief without pricing will be quickly ‘used up’ by new trips lured out of latency by the promise of faster travel. Only pricing can ‘clear the market’ and make the traffic reductions last.”

Well, you could BAN or SEVERELY RESTRICT entry to some sections of the city. No revenue, but you’ll have solved our problem. Likely to happen? No. But then again, it’s not looking so good for congestion pricing either.

Beyond that…it is true that the lack of a constituency, aside from mostly Manhattan-based environmental groups and the like, has hurt congestion pricing’s chances. Maybe that was inevitable.

But maybe it had something to do with having an inept champion in City Hall who refused, for instance, to stop a fare hike as a sign that congestion pricing promised something for transit riders. And who continues to push the use of congestion pricing dollars for expansion projects that will benefit few riders, like the 7 line extension.

I don’t think we should even think about not pursuing congestion pricing until a commuter tax bill passes both houses of the state legislature and is sitting on Spitzer’s desk.

Also, the QCC proposal does nothing to reduce traffic through Sunnyside and Woodside.

Jonathan & Laurence — that Shoup article is indeed terrific. I love his aphorism, “The dilemma confronting congestion pricing is not that opposition is too high, but that support is too low.” We highlighted that on p. 3 of the Kheel Report.

Rhubarbpie — You wrote, “there are likely ways of reducing congestion without [congestion pricing].” Wrong. Any congestion relief without pricing will be quickly “used up” by new trips lured out of latency by the promise of faster travel. Only pricing can “clear the market” and make the traffic reductions last.