Bob Lutz: Time is money. In that sense, tolling is more fair than taxes, because the money spent goes a great deal further to reduce the travel time. This makes deliveries cheaper.

Also, delivery prices, per se, are a red herring, as is some supposed cost of living idea that does not take into account at least a dozen factors, to begin with.

#26 -- I agree re minimal gas tax impact. Disagree that transit capacity is a red herring. It's a real complaint by real people (I've done the 3-train wait myself.) Solution is investing in cars, signals, personnel, as outlined in Kheel Report. I agree totally re changing parking policy, for both substantive and political reasons, except that we need both tolls and parking policy. Come to discussion of "where do we go from here" at Auto-Free NY meeting next Tues. Info here.

#23 -- Careful, the passage in which NYCDOT is helpfully quoted doesn't rebut the fact that much of transit is now operated at/near/above capacity; it simply shows that the c.p. plan wouldn't have added much to current loads. The existing situation at peak is still unacceptable on too many lines.

#21 -- I like your way of parsing different transpo-reform goals and the tools to achieve each. I published a law review article along these lines back in 1994. It still pertains, give it a look.

#20 -- A careful literature review will dispel your notion that the demand for gasoline is essentially price-inelastic. Start here (Myth #2). Still, the larger point of my post (and Comment #26) stands: "market-driven" gas price hikes, and even gas taxes, won't reduce congestion-sensitive driving in NYC nearly as fast and effectively as congestion pricing.

#13 -- Road pricing (including c.p.) is a very effective way to raise revenue because the price-elasticity of driving is less than one.

#12 -- The local costs you helpfully cite (road wear, emissions, etc.) all pale next to the time cost of traffic congestion. I stress this to underscore my view that the mayor made a big mistake in straying off the message that his congestion pricing plan would have saved New Yorkers millions of hours of precious time.

#9 -- A glance at the law review article I mention above (re #21) will help you rethink your belief that "gas taxes are the fairest and most efficient way of charging for the use of the roads." The article explains that gas taxes are the fairest etc. way to charge for the myriad and enormous consequences of oil extraction and combustion (from climate change to military adventurism); whereas road charges are the optimal way to charge for use of roads.

#7 (a/k/a #12) -- Why not download the spreadsheet for the Kheel report (see link in original article or in reply to #26) and derive the toll figure yourself? Tell us what you find.

#2 -- You write, "try gas at $5 or $10 -- along with spot shortages and the rising panic that will cause." Gas at $5 (as opposed to the current $3.50) will add about two bucks to the cost of a typical round-trip into the CBD. That will dissuade some such trips -- not a huge amount, but some. Obviously $10 would do much more, but waiting for "the market" (a/k/a Peak Oil) to permanently bring the price to $10 is not only passive, it's also futile for the time frame most of us care about.

Finally, a tip of my green eyeshade to John Kaehny, who helpfully pointed out (off-line) that the percentage of cross-Hudson drivers who pay market rate for parking is 40%, not my 70%. Fixing that reduces my calculated price-elasticity to 27-28% from the 36% I mistakenly reported in my article. Thanks John!

Given the compactness of the city and the proximity of drivers to the CBD a gasoline tax will have minimal to no effect.

Tolls are the answer and with new technology the cost to implement new tolls is minimal; we can toll the East and Harlem River bridges for less than implementing CP (fewer entry points).

Until we change parking policy and eliminate the free parking that 60% of drivers into the CBD receive, we need tolls.

Speaking of which, Mayor Mike how are we doing on a REAL placard abuse policy? See my other post on how to implement one with the huevos to be effective.

One big problem with the congestion pricing idea was that mass transit is already near capacity.

It isn't. The problem is that people thought it was:

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/A_plea_for_traffic_fee_from_MTA/9150.html

The city’s Department of Transportation estimates congestion pricing would dissuade 94,000 current drivers over an entire day, but believes only 7,000 of them will shift to subways and buses at the peak morning rush between 8 and 9 a.m. “Other drivers presumably come from areas where it is more convenient to use commuter rail,” said DOT spokesperson Molly Gordy.

If half of that 7,000 end up in the subway, they would add just 1 percent to the current morning peak-hour load of 345,000 riders. Roberts noted they would also be spread across the subway’s 22 lines.

“This is a minimal bump that the system can unequivocally absorb,” he said.

One big problem with the congestion pricing idea was that mass transit is already near capacity. NYC should make a big effort to increase car pooling. A simple way to do this would be to make it much faster to enter the city as a carpool (or a bus) than for a single driver. All they would need to do is to set up carpool only lanes into the tolls. NYC should adopt the two person is a carpool rule used elsewhere in the country rather than cling to its stupid three people carpool rule. Its a lot easier doing a two person car pool so more people would do it. Right now almost every car coming into the city has one person in it. If every car had two people, there would be half the traffic.

I know this will get a lot of "death to cars" responses, but right now the city is dependent on cars to get a lot of people into and out of the city every day and that can not change overnight.

Higher fuel prices encourage lower fuel use - (1. not travelling, 2. using another means of transport, 3. sharing, 4. easing off the gas pedal, 5. using a smaller or more efficient vehicle).
Higher tolls have effects 1, 2 and 3, but not effects 4 and 5.

NAAT, different combinations of tolls and taxes can help us get to the following goals to various degrees:

1. Effective transportation for all (including the poor, disabled, young, old, etc.)
2. Reducing pollution - and thus global warming, asthma, etc.
3. Increasing transportation efficiency - and thus keeping our economy going, avoiding resource depletion, avoiding dependence on foreign oil, etc.
4. Helping people to interact better
5. Reducing carnage

http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2008/04/douglas-adams-wrote-that-in-infinite.html

The various readers, posters and commenters on this blog each prioritize these goals to different degrees. Some of us, in fact, feel that the focus on pollution and efficiency leads people to solutions like gas taxes that don't do enough to reduce carnage, provide transportation for all, or build better communities.

Please don't assume that everyone has the same priorities that you do.

This does work fairly pretty effectively on other continents, especially as a fundraiser for transportation projects. You might say that tolling can be equitable, as it usually targets areas with alternatives. But I agree that taxes don't have the negative affect of shifting economic activity. In fact, gas taxes would move more activity into places that require less gas to access (read: cities).

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/05/gridlock-sams-compromise-plan/

It is certainly true that the gas tax is an effective and very very cheap way of raising revenue - whatever you are going to spend it on.

It is not true to say that the gas tax is unlikely to change driving habits.
Higher fuel prices encourage lower fuel use - (1. not travelling, 2. using another means of transport, 3. sharing, 4. easing off the gas pedal, 5. using a smaller or more efficient vehicle).
Higher tolls have effects 1, 2 and 3, but not effects 4 and 5. Tolls also encourage drivers to take detours or even go to different destinations - this will involve using less suitable routes and possibly longer journeys with more fuel consumption. Tolls are also VERY expensive to collect and are associated with misuse of funds and waste.

Tolls are for trolls from the dark ages.

If a desirable reduction in motor vehuclar travel in the Manhattn Central Business District (CBD) is say 20%, the toll hike is going to have to be a lot more than the Port Authority just put into effect (as well as comparble tolls on other approaches to the CBD).

The Port Authority intends to invest the funds gained from toll hikes in transit capital improvments, many of which will take years to complete. To gain more widespread support for higher tolls, the transit improvements need to occur sooner, and benefit many more people.

That is why a "carrot and stick" approach to transport pricing is so important. Charging motorists enough to really reduce traffic and using these revnues to increase transit service and reduce transit fares (all the way to Zero as in the Kheel plan) is the way to go.

At the same time that the Port Authority it raised PATH fares, and continues to operate infrequent PATH service, particualrly mid-day, evenings and weekends. All stick and no carrot. A really sensible approach, for cross-Hudson River traffic, would be to raise tolls to much higher levels, particularly at times when back-ups make life miserable in Hell's Kitchen and in Hudson County, and to greatly increase service on NJ Transit, while cutting, not raising fares.

CP was also limited in that it was only in effect for 60 hours a week and toll-shopping is a 24/7 problem.

Fixing toll inequities is a better way to end toll-shopping than CP.

It's one reason the craven fiddling of pols like Millman is so repulsive - her district stood to see huge congestion relief benefits.

He doesn't make the flip point (because it's not necessarily relevant to his analysis in this post): that raising the gas tax is an effective way to raise revenue because it is unlikely to change driving habits (at least at any level that's politically feasible).

To say, as Hilary does, that a gas tax won't capture the cost of infrastructure ignores the fact that any increase captures more or makes more available for alternative transportation.

And if we couple it with tolls on the currently free bridges it might help spread change throughout all boroughs.

The goal here is less traffic on local streets in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens headed to the free crossings and more on the highways. Yes a tough sell but the city has to realize it is in everyone's best interests.

I can hear the soundbites from Staten Island about more traffic on the Staten Island Expressway; do you think we will hear from the other boroughs about reductions on their local streets?

We already give Staten Islanders huge discounts on the VNB and a free ferry ride (why that isn't on Metrocard with a free transfer is beyond me) so I don't think we owe them anything else.