I think both of our schemes would have the same effect on that person going to work (assuming that person works in Manhattan, and disregarding the fact that we may be thinking of different numbers… I just picked $4 because that was the internal congestion price Bloomberg used). However, mine would have the added bonus of catching the person who may not work in the CBD.

I think the difference in our thinking comes down to what exactly you’re trying to do: are you trying to reduce congestion in congested roadways or are you trying to reduce driving overall. Obviously they’re not mutually exclusive (reducing congestion in congested roadways reduces driving overall, and vice versa), and a lot of methods will achieve both.

The difference comes in when you think of long term effects. Creating central zones and/or tolling pinch points leading into a central zone encourages more transit oriented development in that central zone, and I would argue this comes at the expense of making the outer boros more dense (and this lower density would bring less mass transit alternatives to more underserved areas).

This is what I didn’t really like about the Ravitch plan. By tolling all the bridges, it arbitrarily includes only Upper Manhattan and the CBD as part of the congestion zone, meaning denser development will be encouraged in Upper Manhattan when compared to other close to the CBD areas such as Downtown Brooklyn, Astoria and LIC. There’s no reason why Upper Manhattan should be included in this congestion zone, it just happens to be on the same island as the CBD by a quirk of geography.

Of course this is all theoretical. What I’m proposing does have privacy implications like you mentioned, and operational costs. There’s a reason why no one would ever seriously consider this…

Pretending that the 5 boros are flat and without water boundaries however, I would still say that including all 5 boros in one zone would be better than having a smaller zone around the CBD. And, if we’re thinking about it in this abstract way, there’s no real way it would make sense to include one district and not another outside of the CBD in the congestion zone.

There are problems with this proposal too, because not every trip has the same value to the driver. True, you’d have more people walking to the store for milk, but you’d also have many people driving to work far away, since the cost is almost the same as a subway ride. A flat fee would work in a place like Florida, which is flat and has roads of the same capacity in every direction. But in New York, with its islands and choke points, you need to charge based on supply and demand.

In that case, shorter rides are discouraged more than longer rides, and the division of bridges or congestion zones become a non-issue. It’s the same fee to drive tip to tip across Manhattan, Drive from the Bronx across Queens to Brooklyn, and to drive 2 blocks to the grocery store in Eastern Queens.

You’re not unfairly penalizing drivers who happen to be crossing bridges because everyone gets the same toll, you’re discouraging short unnecessary (by car) trips, and those who choose to drive won’t be discouraged from crossing bridges.

Think about an example like this: If you live in Whitestone and have a choice of going to a store in Throggs Neck or a store in Jamaica, odds are someone would choose to drive to Jamaica, even though Throggs Neck is closer. If you got charged either way, not only would you definitely be going to Throggs Neck (resulting in a shorter drive if you drove), but you would rethink the Q44 bus because there’s not a toll free alternative available.

an even more empty FDR

Huh?? Larry, are you implying that the FDR is even remotely “empty” now?

Overall the Ravitch plan raises money for the MTA, but does not reduce congestion, whereas the congestion pricing was really intended to reduce driving.

To bring back clean air and congestion relief in the plan, we need an incentive for good behavior: I propose that the tolls be proportional to the number of passengers in the vehicle, with a $ 0 charge if there are 3 or more people in the car , normal toll for 2 people and triple toll if there is only one preson. This would not apply to trucks (deliveries, not SUV).

Finally in Manhattan, we need to increse drastically the cost of overnight parking to dissuade 10022 and 10021 to own a car and use it everyday.

The funds from Ravitch’s proposed East River tolls would go toward MTA capital projects and operations serving – Brooklyn and Queens (and should we also be saying LONG ISLAND!). East Side Access, Second Avenue Subway, BRT, Station Re-habs – a lot of these investments directly impact the Brooklyn and Queens user.

Let’s talk about equity… You sited an amazing fact… that NJ drivers only make up a quarter of vehicles into the CBD! Yet these drivers have paid draconian tolls that are the principal funding engine for the region’s major capital needs. Yes – that’s right Brooklyn and Queens residents – your principal airports – JFK and LGA – in part – are funded thanks to the wallets of NJ drivers. Yet NONE of the substantial Hudson toll pool finds its way into NJ’s state rail capital or operating budgets (Though notably the PA committed funds for ARC are appreciated).

How’s that for equitable?

Your year-ago plan, while well-meaning, is doomed to failure because it ignores the “rebound effect” whereby car owners will take advantage of newly freed road space to make additional trips that then “use up” that space.

We could place traffic cops at every intersection, airlift every double-parked car and truck, and mandate 2 a.m. truck deliveries … and gridlock would reappear within a week, as the improvement in traffic flow attracted drivers now deterred by the too-crowded roads.

You may not like free transit financed by congestion pricing (though I believe many of your constituents would), but it doesn’t advance the conversation to represent, against both economic theory and hard evidence, that your plan or any other plan without a pricing element can bust gridlock.

I do believe tht I in fact proposed a plan that would ahve relieved traffic congestion and paid for mass transit. You may not have liked it, but it wass at LEAST as viable as the notion of free mass transit in perpetuity.

And i might add, that I heard respected transit advocates like Gene Russianoff and Noah Budnick argue for the payroll tax swith the exact same words that I used when i first proposed it almost a year ago. Had that been done then, we would now have already raised over a billion dollars for mass transit and there would be no talk of fare hikes now.

many of the ideas that I proposed are being worked on now by places like the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability. We may yet find out if they work.

sign me,

troglodyte from Brooklyn

Maybe this would also address Komanoff’s perceived inequality between the Ravitch and the Kheel Plans. If pricing is strictly congestion-based, in real time, and 7 days a week, then we are effectively controlling the choke points which cause the majority of congestion in the metropolitan area- people driving through the five boroughs to get to points east or west, as well as rush-hour congestion in Manhattan.

In the long term with a 5 boro congestion zone, perhaps the MTA could expand transit connections across the outer boros, without going through Manhattan. Maybe they could even extend the 7 train into Queens where it’s actually needed, instead of expanding it within Manhattan!

I always thought it would be a nightmare operationally, but GPS sensors could make it work.